Social influence

Question 1

What is conformity?

Answer 1

Change in a persons behaviour or opinions due to real or imagined pressure from others

Question 2

Types of conformity and what they are

Answer 2

Internalisation - take on majority view because we accept it as correct, permanent change.
Identification - we act the same as a group because we value it and want to be a part of it, but might not agree with it.
Compliance - we go along with a majority view but we don’t agree with it, only lasts as long as group is around.

Question 3

Explanations for conformity

Answer 3

Informational social influence (ISI) - we agree with the opinion of a group because we think its correct and we want to be correct. (linked with internalisation)
Normative social influence (NSI) - we agree with an opinion of a group because we want to fit in a gain social approval. (linked with compliance)

Question 4

EVALUATION of confomrity

Answer 4

STRENGTH
Research support - Lucas et al (2006), difficult maths problems, more conformity to incorrect answers when question was difficult. so people conform when they’re in situation where they find something difficult, and we look at others and assume they’re right.

Question 5

EVALUATION of conformity

Answer 5

LIMITATION
Individual differences in NSI - Asch (1995) found students were less conformist than other people. Perrin + Spencer (1980) also found conformity in engineering students. so people who are more knowledgeable are less influenced by what is the ‘right’ answer. therefore differences in how people respond to ISI.

Question 6

EVALUATION of conformity

Answer 6

LIMITATION
ISI and NSI work together - states behaviour is due to NSI or ISI. but conformity decreased when there was a dissenting partner in Asch’s research, which may reduce the power of NSI (providing social support) or ISI (alternative source of information). So isn’t always a problem to know if ISI or NSI is at work, questioning whether NSI and ISI operate independently.

Question 7

EVALUATION of conformity

Answer 7

STRENGTH
Research support for NSI - Asch (1951) asked participants to explain why they conformed and some said they felt self conscious. He asked them to write down their answers and conformity fell to 12.5%, supporting that they were conforming because of NSI

Question 8

EVALUATION of conformity

Answer 8

LIMITATION
Individual differences in ISI - people who care more about social approval are affected by NSI (nAffiliators). McGhee and Teevan (1967) found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people.

Question 9

Asch’s research

Answer 9

Procedure - shows two cards, one has a standard line on, the other has three ‘comparison lines’, one which was the same length. Participants = 123 American males, groups of 6-8 confederates. They were asked which one was the same as standard line. confederate gave right answer a couple times then gave wrong answer. There were 18 trials and 12 ‘critical trials’ (wrong answer was said).
Findings - the participant gave the wrong answer 36.8% o the time. 25% didn’t conform but 75% did, they said thy conformed because they wanted to avoid rejection.

Question 10

Asch’s variations

Answer 10

Group size - Asch increase group size by adding more confederates and found an increase in conformity levels but only to a certain point of majority being greater than 3
Unanimity - where all the people in a group agree. in Asch’s study all confederates were unanimous. this produced the biggest degree of conformity.
Task difficulty - when things become more difficult they’re harder to work out the answer, conformity increased when he made the lines more similar.

Question 11

EVALUATION of Asch

Answer 11

LIMITATION
A child of its time - Perrin and Spencer (1980) found only one conforming response in 396 trails. IN the 1950s it was a conformist time and people might be less likely to conform in other times. So Asch’s theory is consistent.

Question 12

EVALUATION of Asch

Answer 12

LIMITATION
Artificial situation and task - participants knew they were in a study, so could of responded to demand characteristics. the line task was trivial, so here was no reason to not conform. findings don’t generalise to everyday situations.

Question 13

EVALUATION of Asch

Answer 13

LIMITATION
Limited application to findings - Asch only tested men, Neto (1995) suggested women might be more conformist. participants were also from an individualist culture (concerned more about themselves). Smith and Bond say conformity rates are more higher in collectivist cultures (concerned with group needs) suggesting conformity levels are sometimes higher then Asch found, so his findings are limited.

Question 14

EVALUATION of Asch

Answer 14

LIMITATION
Findings only apply to certain situations - participants answered out loud with strangers they wanted to impress, so conformity is higher than normal. Williams and Sogon found conformity was higher when majority were friends. So the Asch effect varies depending on situation.

Question 15

EVALUATION of Asch

Answer 15

LIMITATION
Ethical issues - naïve participants were deceived, they thought confederates were genuine participants. But this ethical issues needs to be considered with the benefits of the study, which is highlighting peoples susceptibility to group conformity.

Question 16

Zimbardo’s research

Answer 16

Procedure - Mock prison experiment at Stanford University. Got students that volunteered and used them who were mentally stable. Randomly assigned roles of prisoner or guard. The prisoners were arrested in their own homes without notice. Social roles were divided and they each had uniforms and some took their roles very seriously and guards had complete authority over prisoners.
Findings - The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14 cause of poeples mentla health. Prisoners gained violent behaviour and attitudes and were rebbeling.
Conclusions - it revealed the power of the situation and that all participants confomred to their roles.

Question 17

EVALUATION of Zimbardo

Answer 17

STRENGTH
Control - emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly assigned roles. They had these roles by chance, so their behaviour was due to pressures of the situation. So control increases the studies internal validity.

Question 18

EVALUATION of Zimbardo

Answer 18

LIMITATION
Lack of realism - Banduazizi and Mohavedi suggested participants were acting, and their performances reflected stereotypes. One guard said he based his role of a guard from a movie. But Zimbardo’s data showed 90% of conversations were about prison life and how the experiment seemed real to them. This increases internal validity.

Question 19

EVALUATION of Zimbardo

Answer 19

LIMITATION
Role of dispositional influences - a third of guards behaved brutally, another third applied rules fairly and the rest supported the prisoners. Zimbardo’s conclusion that participants conformed to social roles might be over-stated , exaggerating the power of the situation. The difference in guards behaviour shows that they could exercise right and wrong choices , despite situational pressures to conform to a role.

Question 20

EVALUATION of Zimbardo

Answer 20

LIMITATION
Lack of research support - Reicher and Haslam partially replicated the SPE but got different findings (prisoners took control). Tajfel’s social identity theory explains this, the guards in replication failed to develop shared social identity as a group, but prisoners did. The brutality of the guards in the original SPE was due to a shared social identity rather than conformity to social roles.

Question 21

EVALUATION of Zimbardo

Answer 21

LIMITATION
Ethical issues - one issue arose cause Zimbardo was both lead researcher and prison superintendent. A student wanted to leave and asked Zimbardo but he responded and superintendent worried about the running of his prison. This limited Zimbardo’s ability to protect participants from harm

Question 22

What is obedience?

Answer 22

A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from a person of authority who has the power to punish when disobedient.

Question 23

Milgram’s Research

Answer 23

Procedure - participants had to
deliver increasingly high-voltage shocks to an actor (confederate) in another room, who would then scream and eventually go silent as the shocks became stronger.
Findings - 65% of participants continued to the highest levels of 450 volts. All continued to 300 volts. 12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.

Question 24

EVALUATION of Milgram

Answer 24

LIMITATION
Low internal validity - Orne and Holland (1968) suggest participants guessed the electric shocks were fake, meaning Milgram didnt test what he wanted to. Sheridan and King’s (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy and 54% of males and 100% of females delivered the shock

Question 25

EVALUATION of Milgram

Answer 25

STRENGTH
Good external validity - Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participants reflected real-life authority relationships. Holfling found that levels of obedience in nurses to demands by doctors were very high. Therefore, Milgram’s study can be generalised.

Question 26

EVALUATION of Milgram

Answer 26

STRENGTH
Supporting replication - a French contestant in a reality game show was paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actors). 80% gave the maximum 450 volts. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants e.g. signs of anxiety. This supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and shows that his findings were not just a one-off.

Question 27

EVALUATION of Milgram

Answer 27

STRENGTH
An alternative explanation (Social identity theory) - Milgram’s participants identified with the experimenter. Obedience levels fell so participants identified more with the victim. Haslam and Reicher suggest the first three ‘prods’ are appeals for help with science (experiment requires you continue). Only the 4th prod demands obedience. The participants did not give shocks due to obedience, but due to their identification with the experimenter as a scientist

Question 28

EVALUATTION of Milgram

Answer 28

LIMITATION
Ethical issues - Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram’s deceptions. Participants believed allocation was random, but it was fixed. The worst deception was that participants believed the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because deception is a betrayal of trust that damaged the reputation of psychologists and their research. Deception of participants may also make them less likely to volunteer for future research.

Question 29

Situational variables

Answer 29

Milgram identified 3 factors that influence obedience.
Proximity - the physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.
Location - the place where an order is issued.
Uniform - people in position of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority

Question 30

EVALUATION of situational varibales

Answer 30

STRENGTH
Research support - Bickman (1974) looked at the effect of authority on obedience. The confederate asked passers-by to provide a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate. This supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform conveys authority.

Question 31

EVALUATION of situational varibales

Answer 31

LIMITATION
Lack of internal validity - Orne and Holland suggest participants in Milgram’s variations were even more likely to realise the procedure was faked because of experimental manipulation. In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public’, even Milgram recognised this was obvious that some participants may have worked it out. So, it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience.

Question 32

EVALUATION of situational varibales

Answer 32

STRENGTH
Cross-cultural replication - Miranda found over 90% obedience in Spanish students. Milgram’s findings are not limited to American males. Smith and Bond note that most replications have taken place in Western societies, not different from the USA. You cant conclude that Milgram’s findings apply to people from anywhere.

Question 33

EVALUATION of situational varibales

Answer 33

STRENGTH
Control of varibales in variations - Milgram altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience. Other variables were kept constant as the study was replicated many times with over 1000 participants. This control gives us certainty that changes in obedience were caused by the variable’s manipulation, showing the cause and effect relationships.

Question 34

EVALUATION of situational varibales

Answer 34

LIMITATION
The ‘obedience alibi’ - Milgram’s findings are an ‘excuse’ for obedience, suggesting that it’s the situation not the person who is responsible. Mandel claims this is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control. Milgram’s situations perspective is dangerous because it ignores the roles of discrimination, racism and prejudice played in the Holocaust.

Question 35

Social-psychological factors

Answer 35

Agentic state

Legitimacy of authority

Question 36

Agentic state

Answer 36

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe were acting for an authority figure. (as their agent)

Question 37

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 37

An explanation for obedience suggesting we are more likely to obey people who we see to have authority over us.

Question 38

EVALUATION of social-psychological factors

Answer 38

STRENGTH
Research support - Blass and Schmidt showed students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them who was responsible for harm to the learner. Students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. This responsibility was due to legitimate authority but also to expert authority. The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience supporting his explanation.

Question 39

EVALUATION of social-psychological factors

Answer 39

LIMITATION
A limited explanation -Some participants did not obey – humans are social animals in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey. Also, in Hofling’s study, nurses should have shown anxiety as they gave responsibility over to the doctor, because they understood their role in a destructive process. But this was not the case. So agentic shift can be only account for some situations.

Question 40

EVALUATION of social-psychological factors

Answer 40

LIMITATION
Cultural differences - Mandel described German Reserve Police Battalion 101 – men shot civilians in a small town of Poland. They did this even though they were not directly ordered to. This challenges the agentic state explanation because the Reserve Police were not powerless to disobey.

Question 41

EVALUATION of social-psychological factors

Answer 41

STRENGTH
The ‘obedience alibi’ revisited - Countries differ in obedience to authority: only 16% of Australians went to the top of the voltage scale (Kilham and Mann 1974); 85% of German participants did (Mantell 1971). Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures. This reflects how different societies are structured and children raised to perceive authority figures. Supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the explanation.

Question 42

EVALUATION of social-psychological factors

Answer 42

STRENGTH
Real-life crimes of obedience - Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest the My Lai Massacre (Vietnam War) is explained by the power hierarchy of the US Army. The army has authority by the US Government and the law Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal; even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages. The legitimacy of authority explanation is able to give reasons why destructive obedience is committed.

Question 43

Dispositional explanations

Answer 43

The authoritarian personality - a type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in auhtority.

Question 44

Authoritarian personality research

Answer 44

Procedure - Adorno did an experiment using various psychological scales to attempt to explain racism and the atmosphere that led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews. He investigated the obedient personality of more than 2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards racial groups, he created scales to measure this and the F-Scale is still used now.
Findings - One of the discoveries was that people with authoritarian leanings (scored high on the F-scale) identified with ‘strong’ people and were generally contemptuous of the ‘weak’. Adorno found that authoritarian people had a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people.

Question 45

EVALUATION of dispositional explanations

Answer 45

STRENGTH
Research support - Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed fully obedient participants – all scored highly on the f-scale. However, this link is just a correlation between measured variables. We cannot conclude from this that author Arian personality causes obedience. A ‘third factor’ may be involved. Both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education (Hyman and Sheatsley 1954).

Question 46

EVALUATION of dispositional explanations

Answer 46

LIMITATION
Limited explanation - Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour - but didn’t have the same personality. It seems unlikely the majority of Germany’s population possessed an authoritarian personality. N alternative explanation is more realistic – social identity theory. Most Germans identified with eh anti-Semitic Nazi state and adopted its views.

Question 47

EVALUATION of dispositional explanations

Answer 47

LIMITATION
Political bias - Christie and Jahoda (1954) suggest that the f-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology. But right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both inset on complete obedience to political authority. Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation of obedience to authority because it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, I.e. it is politically biased.

Question 48

EVALUATION of dispositional explanations

Answer 48

LIMITATION
Methodological problems - Greenstein suggests the f-scale is ‘a comedy of methodological errors’, e.g. items are worded in the same ‘direction’ so the scale just measures the tendency to agree to everything. Researchers knew the participants’ test scores when they interviewed them. So, they knew who had authoritarian personalities. They also knew the study’s hypothesis, which makes biased results likely. Suggesting that the data collected is meaningless and the concept of authoritarian personality lack validity.

Question 49

EVALUATION of dispositional explanations

Answer 49

LIMITATION
Correlation, not causation - Adorno measured many variables and found significant correlations between them (e.g. authoritarianism correlated with prejudice against minority groups). No matter how strong a correlation between two variables is, it does not mean that one causes the other. Therefore, Adorno could not claim that harsh parenting style caused development of an authoritarian personality.

Question 50

Resistance to social influence

Answer 50

Social support

Locus of control

Question 51

Social support and Locus of control

Answer 51

Social support - the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey, this helps others to do the same.
Locus of control -refers to the sense we each have about what directs our life events. internals - think they’re responsible, externals - think its about luck and outside factors

Question 52

EVALUATION of resistance to social influence

Answer 52

STRENGTH
Reseacrh support (resistance to conformity) - Allen and Levine found independence increased with one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said that he had problems with vison (he couldn’t judge the line lengths). So, resistance is not motivated by following hat someone else says but it enables someone to be free of pressure from the group.

Question 53

EVALUATION of resistance to social influence

Answer 53

STRENGTH
Research support (resistance to obedience) -  Gamson found higher levels of rebellion (independent behaviour) than Milgram did. Gamson’s participants were in groups (evidence that an oil company would use for a smear campaign). In Gamson’s study 29 out of 33 groups of participants rebelled. This shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.

Question 54

EVALUATION of resistance to social influence

Answer 54

STRENGTH
Research support - Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level. Only 23% of externals did not continue. So, internals shower greater resistance. This support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance.

Question 55

EVALUATION of resistance to social influenceL

Answer 55

LIMITATION
Contradictory research - Twenge analysed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing that people have become more independent but also more external. If resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal. This challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance. But the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside personal control.

Question 56

EVALUATION of resistance to social influence

Answer 56

LIMITATION
Limited role of LOC - Rotter found LOC is only important in new situations. It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important. It means people who have conformed or obeyed specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have a high internal LOC. This is a limitation because it means that LOC is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations.

Question 57

Minority influence

Answer 57

A form of social infleunce where minority people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

Question 58

EVALUATION of minority infleunce

Answer 58

STRENGTH
Research support for consistency - Serge Moscovici found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion. Wood conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential. This confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.

Question 59

EVALUATION of minority infleunce

Answer 59

STRENGTH
Research support for depth of thought - Martin gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint, and attitude measured. Then they hear an endorsement of the view from either a minority or a majority. Finally, they heard a conflicting view; attitudes measured again. People were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group. This suggest that the minority message had been more deeply processes and had a more enduring effect.

Question 60

EVALUATION of minority infleunce

Answer 60

LIMITATION
Artificial tasks - Moscovici’s task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in real life. In jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important, maybe a matter of life or death. Findings of the studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-life situations.

Question 61

EVALUATION of minority infleunce

Answer 61

STRENGTH
Resecrah support for internalisation - Moscovici varied his study; participants wrote their answers down, so their responses were private. Agreement with the minority was greater. This shows that internalisation took place. Members of the majority had been reluctant to admit their ‘conversion’ publicly. This shows people may be influences by a minority but don’t admit it, therefor the effect of minority is not apparent.

Question 62

EVALUATION of minority infleunce

Answer 62

LIMITATION
Limited real-world application -Studies make a clear distinction between majority and minority, but real-life situations are more complicated. Majorities usually have power and status. Minorities are committed and tight-knit groups whose members know and support each other. Minority influence research rarely effects the dynamics of these groups so findings may not apply to real-life minority influence situations which extort a more powerful influence.

Question 63

Social influence and social change

Answer 63

Social influence - The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours.

Social change - This occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.

Question 64

EVALUATION of social influence and social change

Answer 64

STRENGTH
Research support for normative influences - Nolan hung messages on front of doors of houses. The key message was most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. Significant decrease in energy use compared to control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other people’s behaviours. So, conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI.

Question 65

EVALUATION of social influence and social change

Answer 65

LIMITATION
Minority influence is only indirectly effective - Nemeth suggests the effects of minority influencer indirect and delayed. It took decade for attitudes against drink-driving and smoking to shift. Indirect; the majority is influences only on matters related to the central issue, and not the issue itself. Delayed; effects not seen for some time. Using minority influence to explain social change is limited because it shows that effects are fragile and its role in social influence narrow.

Question 66

EVALUATION of social influence and social change

Answer 66

LIMITATION
Role of deeper processing - Moscovici suggested that minority influence causes individuals to think deeply. Mackie (1987) disagrees, arguing that majority influence creates deeper processing if you do not share their views. We believe that others think the same ways as us; when we find the majority believed differently, we are forced to think hard about their arguments. So, a central element of minority influence is challenged and may be incorrect, casting doubt on the validity of Moscovici’s theory.

Question 67

EVALUATION of social influence and social change

Answer 67

LIMITATION
Barriers to social change - Bashi suggest people are less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they wanted to avoid label of being a minority. Participants rated environmental activists negatively. Minorities wanting social change should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes; off-putting to the majority. This suggest that being able to identify with a minority group is just as important as agreeing with their views and terms of changing behaviours.

Question 68

EVALUATION of social influence and social change

Answer 68

LIMITATION
Methodological issues - Explanations of social change rely on studies by Moscovici, Asch and Milgram. These can be evaluated in terms of methodology, mainly over the artificial nature of the tasks and whether the group dynamics reflect real-life. These criticisms apply to the evaluation of explanations for the link between social influence processes and social change.