Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology AQA A Level > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is conformity

A

A change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people

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

What are the three types of conformity and who made these labels

A
  • Kelman (1958)
  • Compliance
  • Internalisation
  • Identification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is compliance

A
  • private opinion does not change
  • public opinion changes to agree with group
  • superficial and temporary form of conformity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is internalisation

A
  • public views change to agree with group
  • private opinion changes to match the public view
  • deeper and more permanent conformity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is identification

A
  • moderate type of conformity
  • identify with the group on a personal level (solidarity is formed)
  • May agree publicly but disagree privately
  • eg eating vegan food when with vegan friends even if you’re not vegan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the two reasons for conformity and who identified them

A
  • informational social influence (ISI)
  • normative social influence (NSI)
  • Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Define ISI

A

the person conforms because they are unsure of what is correct and do not want to stand out

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

What situations will ISI take place more often

A
  • the situation is ambiguous
  • the situation is more complex/difficult
  • the situation is a crisis (rapid action)
  • we think other people have more knowledge and know what to do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What form of conformity does ISI lead to

A

Internalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Define NSI

A

The person conforms in order to be liked and accepted by a group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

In what situations is NSI more likely to occur

A
  • when with strangers and there’s fear of rejection

* in stressful situations where people need social support

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What form of conformity does NSI lead to

A

Compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the strengths for ISI

A
  • Research support

* Lucas et al (2006) asked students maths Qs and saw conformity occur for harder Qs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the strengths for NSI

A
  • Research support

* Asch (1951) found that PPs feared rejection and agreed to majority viewpoint

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the weaknesses for ISI

A

• ISI does not affect everyone the same way
- Asch (1955) students Not conformist (28%) compared to PPs (37%)

  • lacks population validity
  • ISI AND NSI may be involved
  • Asch. One other dissenting PP => conformity dropped
  • Cannot tell if ISI or NSI dropped

• Lacks ecological validitiy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the weaknesses for NSI

A

• NSI does not affect everyone.

  • nAffiliators have a greater need for affiliation (conform More)
  • McGhee and Teevan (1967)

• lacks population validity

  • ISI AND NSI may be involved
  • Asch. One other dissenting PP => conformity dropped
  • Cannot tell if ISI or NSI dropped

• Lacks ecological validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Key studies for conformity

A
  • Jenness (1932)
  • Sherif (1936)
  • Asch (1951)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Jenness aim

A

If individuals opinions change in ambiguous situations, after group discussion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Jenness method

A
  • Glass bottle with 811 white beans
  • 26 students estimate how many
  • PPs groups of 3
  • Guess again after
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Jenness results

A

• Nearly all PPS change

  • male by 256
  • female by 382

• range went from 1875 to 474 (75% decrease)

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

Jenness conclusion

A

The opinions change because ISI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Sherif aim

A

Demonstrate people conform to group norms in ambiguous situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Sherif Method part 1

A

• Autokinetic effect
• PPs were asked individually
-answers were given in large ranges (20-80cm)

• PPs were asked in groups of 3s. (Sherif manipulated the groups so 2 similar 1 diff)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Sherif results part 1

A
  • Group converged to common estimate

* 1 pp diff conformed to 2 pp with similar answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Sherif method part 2

A
  • PPs were asked for their opinion in a group

* THEN asked again alone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Sherif results part 2

A

• Participants internalised the group norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Sherif conclusion

A

People adopt group norms in ambiguous situations. ISI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Asch aim

A

Investigate the degree individuals conform to obviously wrong majority (non-ambiguous)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Asch method

A
  • 123 America male students
  • groups of 6-8
  • one PP (others confederates)
  • confederate gave same wrong answer
  • 18 trials (12 critical)

• lab experiment (controlled)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Asch results

A
  • 1/3 conformity rate (1/3 answers were wrong)
  • at least 3/4 conformed in 18 trials
  • 25% didn’t conform
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Asch conclusion

A

Compliance + NSI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Variables affecting conformity

A
  • Group size
  • Unanimity
  • Task difficulty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What did Group size show in Asch’s experiment

A
  • 1 confederate 3% conformity
  • 2 confederates 13% conformity
  • 3 confederates 30% conformity
34
Q

What did Unanimity show in Asch’s experiment

A
  • one confederate gave right answer conformity went from 1/3 to 5.5%
  • one confederate gave Different wrong answer conformity went to 9%
35
Q

What did Task Difficulty show in Asch’s experiemnt

A

Increasing task difficulty caused increase in conformity

36
Q

Weaknesses of Asch

A
  • lacks temporal validity (post-war attitudes)
  • lacks ecological validity
  • lacks population validity (volunteer sample, gender biased)
  • ethical issues (distress, demand characteristics, deception)
37
Q

What are social roles?

A

Behaviours expected of someone in a social position/status

38
Q

Zimbardo aim

A

Does conformity to social roles affect people’s behaviour

39
Q

Zimbardo method

A
  • SPE experiment - basement
  • randomly assigned 24 male college students

• guards were to use any means necessary (no violence)

40
Q

Zimbardo findings

A
  • on second day there was a rebel
  • the guards became more brutal

•prisoners were dehumanised

  • vocally abused
  • stripped naked
  • do push ups
  • solitary confinement

• experiment was ended after 6 days (meant to last 2 weeks)

41
Q

Strengths of SPE (Zim)

A
  • control over variables (random assignment)

* good application (Abu Ghraib)

42
Q

Weaknesses of SPE (Zim)

A

• lack of research support
- BBC prison study had prisoners gang up on guards

• ethical issues

  • Zimbardo played dual role
  • psychological harm

• lack of population validity

  • cultural bias
  • gender bias

• demand characteristics

43
Q

What is obedience?

A

Form of social influence where individual behaves as instructed by an authority figure

44
Q

Milgram aim

A

• Investigate obedience to authority when instructed to cause harm
- Whether German soldiers obeyed the Holocaust because of obedience or dispositional factors

45
Q

Milgram (1963) method

A

• Newspaper advertisement to gather PPs
- 40 male PPs

• Mr Wallace (confederate) was the learner

  • Wallace has weak heart
  • PP was teacher

• PP must shock learner if they answer wrong or do not answer
- PP was given test shock

• went from 15V to 450V (up in 15’s)

  • 180V W complained
  • 300V W begged to leave
  • 315V W was silence

• teacher gave 4 prods

  • ‘Pwease continue’
  • ‘The experiment requires that you continue’
  • ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
  • ‘You have no choice, you must coninue’
46
Q

Milgram (1963) findings

A
  • 100% PPs gave 300V
  • 65% PPs gave 450V (max)
  • PPs showed symptoms of anxiety and stress
  • sweating
  • shaking
  • nervous laughter
47
Q

Milgram (1963) strengths

A

• Research support
- good external validity

• cost benefit analysis (ethics)
- 84% PPs were glad they joined

48
Q

Milgram (1963) weaknesses

A

• Low internal validity
- most PPs believed shocks were fake

• Ethical issues

  • deception
  • psychological harm
  • no right to withdraw

• Lacks population validity

  • cultural bias
  • gender bias
49
Q

What are the situational variables that affect obedience

A
  • Proximity
  • Location
  • Uniform
50
Q

What did proximity show in Milgram’s experiment

A
  • teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped from 65%-40%
  • teacher had to physically force learners hand on a metal plate to shock obedience was 30%
  • experimenter left the room and gave instructions via phone obedience was 21%
51
Q

What did Location show in Milgram’s experiment

A

In a rundown building obedience dropped to 48%

52
Q

What did Uniform show in Milgram’s experiment

A

When the experiment was just a random person obedience dropped to 20% (lowest)

53
Q

Milgram’s obedience variables strengths

A

• Research support
- Bickman had smart dressed people ask public to pick litter 90% obeyed (normal person 50%)

• Control of variables
- only altered 1 variable making test v valid

• high population validity

  • High cultural validity (90% Spanish students)
  • high gender validity (same female student obedience)
54
Q

Milgram obedience variable weaknesses

A

• lack of internal validity
- demand characteristics occurred in uniform variation

• these factors act as an alibi from PPs and aren’t honest reasons for obedience but scapegoats

55
Q

Agentic State Theory (Milgram1974)

A

• Proposes individuals have two ways of acting

  • Independently; aware of consequences and aware of being held accountable (autonomic state)
  • Under authority; unaware of consequences and not responsible for actions (agentic state)
  • Requires an agentic shift to go from autonomic to agentic state
  • Happens because greater power is a result of higher position in social hierarchy.
  • Binding factors to the agentic state include situational aspects (case by case). grants ignorance to actions and shifts responsibility onto the victim
56
Q

Agentic State evaluation

A
  • Blass and Schmitt(2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students. students blamed experimenter rather than pp. stds indicated experiment was a scientist (top of hierarchy), pp were just following orders (+)
  • Doesn’t explain why some pps didn’t obey.
  • Doesn’t explain Holfling’s study why one nurse didn’t give the prescribed drug from dr.
  • Doesn’t explain Rank&Jacobson’s study where only 2/18 nurses gave the prescribed drug from dr (-)

• Mandel(1998) explained incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101. Men obeyed orders: shoot civilians in Poland. No direct orders, told could do other duties if preferred. Still carried out with shooting (-)

57
Q

Legitimate Authority Theory

A
  • Society is stricter in a hierarchical way. We are socialised to obey people in positions above us, either out of trust or fear of punishment
  • One consequence is some people are granted the power to punish others (scientist in Milgram’s study)
  • Problem occurs when legitimate authority becomes destructive (Hitler) (experimenter in Milgram’s study used prods)
58
Q

Legitimate Authority Strengths

A
  • Explains functioning of society. Police prevent crime from occurring. Essential
  • Kelman and Hamilton(1989) argues the My Lai massacre in 1968 Vietnam War (504 civilians died) is a result of soldiers following orders of their superiors
  • Kilham and Mann(1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia and found 16% went to full voltage.
  • Mantell(1971) replicated Milgram’s study in Germany and found 85% went to full voltage
  • These studies show cultural differences in perceived legitimacy of authority and different cultures have different upbringings
59
Q

Legitimate Authority Weaknesses

A
  • Not all legitimate authority figures should be obeyed. We may obey authority even if disagree with order because status.
  • Harold Shipman was trusted authority figure, killed 200+ patients. Shows some figures abuse power.
  • Balance must be struck between teaching children to obey authority and encouraging them to question potentially destructive orders
60
Q

What is the authoritarian personality

A
  • Proposed by Adorno(1950)
  • Dispositional explanation of obedience
  • Traits include:
  • Servile to people of higher perceived status
  • Hostile to people of lower perceived status
  • Preoccupied with power
  • Inflexible in beliefs, values
  • Conformist and conventional
  • Likely to categorise people (‘us’ ‘them’)
  • Dogmatic

• People develop these due to harsh disciplined upbringing (physical violence from parents).

  • Creates hostility, targeted to weaker figures.
  • Fear of parents which extends to authority figures.

• Adorno(1950) developed a questionnaire (F scale) to measure authoritarian personalities.

  • Tested 2000+ middle-class white Americans
  • Found that high scores on F scales was correlated with authoritarian personalities
61
Q

Strengths of authoritarian personality

A

• Elms and Milgram(1966) carried follow up study.

  • 20 obedient pps + 20 disobedient pps
  • MMPI scale (personality traits) results were insignificant
  • higher F scale w/ obedient PPs
  • Miller(1975) found PPs with higher F scale score more likely to hold electric wiring when completing a test. Shows that PPs obey authority even if may invoke harm
  • Altemeyer(1981) asked PPs to shock themselves if made mistake in learning task. PPs with higher F scale score more likely to shock themselves
62
Q

Weaknesses of Authoritarian Personality

A
  • Limited explanation. Doesn’t explain why majority of population in countries like Germany are obedient, yet dont all have authoritarian personality
  • Methodological problems. The questionnaire is flawed.
  • Questions are composed that promote subconsciously getting a high score.
  • The test lacks temporal validity.
  • The questions are closed, no explanation.
  • Adorno interviewed PPs about tap childhood, interviewer bias.
63
Q

Two explanations of resistance to social influence

A
  • Social support - external

* Locus of control - internal

64
Q

Explain social support

A

• Person is supported w/ someone that shares view.

• Having ally eliminates NSI
- short term effects

• Pressure to conform reduced
- Even if incorrect, one dissenter enables ability to follow own conscience in others

• Pressure to obey reduced when another disobeys
- Individual not always follow disobedient person but can follow their own conscience

65
Q

Strengths of Social Support

A

•Allen&Levine(1971) found conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in Asch-type study
- Even if this person had vision problems/thick glasses. Proves factor is about social support

•Gamson et al(1982) study had high mundane realism, task was real to life.

  • E.g. discussion about behaviour standards in community
  • THEREFORE Results w/ high ecological validity.
  • PPs unaware in a psych study, no demand characteristics.
66
Q

Weaknesses of Social Support

A
  • Explains why having one dissenter influences majority in small groups (10) (+)
  • Doesn’t explain why having one dissenter won’t influence majority in large group sizes (100) (-)
  • Studies are limited to small group sizes and not representative of real world (-)
67
Q

Explain Locus of Control

A
  • Refers to person’s perception of personal control they have over their behaviour
  • External locus of control see actions as a result of factors out of their control (luck, fate)
  • Internal locus of control see actions as a result of their own control
  • More likely to resist social influence
  • Because more self-confident, achievement oriented, higher intelligence, less need for social approval
68
Q

Strengths of Locus of Control

A

• Oliver and Oliner(1988) interviewed two groups of non-Jewish people that lived through the Holocaust

  • Compared 406 people who protected/rescued Jews from Nazis and 126 people that didn’t
  • Found rescuers had high internal locus of control

• Holland(1967) repeated Milgram’s experiment but measured PPs internal or external locus of control.

  • 37% of internals didn’t obey
  • 23% of externals didn’t obey
69
Q

Weaknesses of Locus of Control

A

• Twenge(2004) analysed data from American obedience studies from 1960-2002

  • Data showed people have more resistance to obedience
  • Also shows people are more External
  • Conflicting results

• Rotter(1982) points out LOC is applied to novel situations, not familiar ones.

  • Past experiences are applied instead of LOC
  • LOC is related to NSI over ISI

• Spector(1983) measured LOC and predisposition to NSI and ISI in 157 undergrads

  • Found significant correlation w/ external LOC and conformity (NSI)
  • ISI and LOC didn’t correlate
70
Q

What is Minority Influence

A

• Type of social influence, motivates individuals to reject majority group norms

  • Done through conversion, majorities gradually change to minority viewpoint
  • Associated with internalisation, opposing majority requires personal belief of viewpoints
71
Q

What’re the behavioural characteristics of Minority Influence

A

• Consistency - minority must be unchanging in beliefs and appear unbiased.
- If approach is consistent then the issue is considered more carefully by others

• Commitment - shows certainty, confidence, and courage

  • Persuades majority group members to take them seriously
  • Augmentation principle explains how minorities change majority (shows commitment)

• Flexibility - Mugny(1982) argues minorities must negotiate rather than enforce their own position
- Mustn’t be seen as inconsistent or dogmatic though

72
Q

Minority Influence Study

A

Moscovici (1969) told 172 female participants that they were taking part in a colour perception task.

naïve participants placed in groups of six and were shown 36 slides, which were varying shades of blue.

73
Q

Moscovici procedure

A

Two of the six participants were confederates. The participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide.

In the consistent condition the confederates said the slide was green in all 36 trials

In the inconsistent condition the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue

74
Q

Moscovici Results

A

In the consistent condition participants were swayed by the minority 8.2% of the time

In the inconsistent condition the participants only went along with the minority 1.25% of the time.

This shows that a consistent minority is more effective than an inconsistent minority.

75
Q

Weaknesses of Minority Influence

A
  • Moscovici’s study (judging colour of slides) lacks mundane realism.
  • therefore results lack ecological validity

Gender bias
Moscovici only used women
Cannot generalise to men

-(Research often suggests that women are more likely to conform than men,
therefore further research is needed to determine the effect of minority
influence on male participants. )

Culture bias
PPs all from America
Cannot generalise

Deceiving, ethical issues, no informed consent

76
Q

Strengths of Minority Influence

A

• Nemeth(2010) argues the dissent in the form of the minority group opens the mind.
- People therefore search for information and make better decisions

• Martin et al(2003) gave PPs message supporting particular viewpoint and measured support

  • One group heard minority group agree with initial view.
  • One group heard majority group agree with initial view
  • PPs were exposed to conflicting view and attitudes were measured again
  • PPs were less willing to change opinions if listened to minority over majority
  • Shows power of minority influence being more deeply processed and more enduring effects
77
Q

What’re the steps of Minority Influence in bringing about social change
(Ayman Chughtai Does A Silly Skit)

A
  • Drawing attention to the issue - usually protests
  • Consistency of position - arguments over time, with each other
  • Deeper processing - people think about the status quo and the injustice of it
  • Augmentation principle - proving that they are willing to suffer for their cause deems it more sewious in public eyes
  • Snowball effect - minority becomes majority, wide scale social change (NSI or ISI)
  • Social cryptoamnesia - source of change and original message becomes dissociated
78
Q

What is Social Change

A

• Society adopts new beliefs, result of minority influence

79
Q

Strengths of Social Change

A

• Nolan(2008) investigated processes led to reduction in energy consumption

  • Hung messages on houses of doors in San Diego every week for 1 month
  • Control group had message not referring to other residents
  • Group that referred to other residents showed decrease in energy usage
  • shows conformity leads to social change via NSI
80
Q

Weaknesses of Social Change

A

• Nemeth(1986) argues effects of minority influence are indirect and delayed.

  • indirect because majority is only influenced on matters at hand (not central issues)
  • delayed because effects are not seen for some time

• Mackie(1987) says if we don’t agree with minority then minority influence can’t happen.
- Says Moscovici’s research lacks validity

• Bashir et al(2013) found PPs less likely to behave environmentally friendly as they didn’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
- Social change can only happen if minority influence is not associate with negative stereotypes

Psychology AQA A Level (3 decks)

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