Social influence Flashcards
What is compliance?
publicly adopting a group’s beliefs even if we don’t agree with them privately
- the most shallow type of conformity
What is internalisation?
This results in private change as well as public, usually permanent as attitudes have become internalised
What is identification?
Identifying with a group and adopting their beliefs - because we identify with them we want to be a part of it
what is the ‘need to be liked’ called?
Normative social influence
what is the ‘need to be right’ called?
Informational social influence
Give two examples of conformity studies
Asch’s conformity studies
Zimbardos Stanford prison experiment
How many participants were in Asch’s original investigation?
123
What was the range of group sizes in Asch’s baseline investigation?
6-8
give the baseline procedure of Asch’s’ conformity study
Those involved must say out loud which comparison line matches the target line
Confederates (aware) all gave the same incorrect answer each time
there are _ types of conformity
3
What were the findings of Asch’s conformity studies?
Group with Confederates conformed 36.8% (1/3rd) of the time
25% of ppts never conformed (individual differences)
What three ways did Asch alter his procedure in follow up studies?
Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty
by altering group sizes in a follow up investigation what did Asch find?
3 people is enough to sway opinion
Adding more confederates does not seem to increase pressure
by having a disparity in unanimity in his follow up investigation what did Asch find?
Confederates giving correct answer
Conformity was 5%
Confederates giving different incorrect answer
Conformity 9%
by altering task difficulty what did Asch find in his follow up investigation?
The more similar the lines (the more ambiguous the answer) the more greater the conformity
Asch’s conformity studies are an example of ________ social influence why is this?
Informational
Conformity increased when the line task was more difficult
give a strength of Asch’s conformity studies
Task difficulty research support - Lucas et al asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ & ‘hard’ maths problems - the ppts conformed more often i.e. agreed with the wrong answers when the problems were harder
give three limitations to Asch’s conformity studies
External validity = low , it is unlikely we are put into this situation in real life and therefore many not be an accurate measure of conformity i.e. the task of identifying lines is trivial and so there is no real reason to conform
Cultural/gender bias - Asch’s OG study & his follow ups were done in America and only with white men - can’t be applied to non western/collectivist cultures as conformity may be differ there e.g. research into collectivist cultures has shown higher levels of conformity due to greater importance placed on the group than the individual - so ungeneralisible & limited application
Ethical issues - deception - ppts unaware of true nature of the experiment
What was the procedure for ZimBardos Stanford prison experiment?
21 male student volunteers tested for emotional and psychological stability
They are randomly allocated prison or guard to reduce research bias
how were participants encouraged to conform in ZimBardos Stanford prison experiment?
Through uniform and instructions
Prisoner - smock , cap , id number , could ‘apply for parole’ but not ‘leave’
Guard - uniform , cuffs , clubs and shades , complete authority over prisoners
what were the findings of ZimBardos Stanford prison experiment?
Guards quickly took on role with enthusiasm
Within two days the prisoners rebelled and the guards retaliated with fire extinguishers
Guards harassed prisoners i.e. headcounts and if refused to ppt they were made to clean the toilets with their bare hands
how many participants were released early in ZimBardos Stanford prison experiment due to distress?
One released post rebellion for psychological disturbance
2 more on day 4
what happened to the participant who went on a hunger strike in ZB’s Stanford prison experiment?
Force fed then punished with isolation
how many days was ZB’s Stanford prison experiment?
6
give two strengths of ZB’s Stanford prison experiment
Internal validity - roles of guards & prisoners randomly allocated and so individual personality differences were ruled out as roles were given by chance so differences in behaviours must be due to the roles themselves - a lot of control over variables
Application - The guards willingness to take on their roles and their increasing aggressive behaviours due to the powers given to them & the uniform (loss of identity) may explain police brutality and the reasons behind it
Give two limitations of ZB’s Stanford prison experiment
Ethical concerns - violated protection from psychological harm as ppts experienced psychological duress e.g. one ppt released post rebellion for psychological disturbance - violated right to withdraw as prisoners could ‘apply for parole’ but not ‘leave’
Contradictory evidence/lack of reliability- BBC prison study very different results, prisoners took control of mock prison and subjected guards to harassment , supported the social identity theory as the guards didnt develop a shared social identity
define obedience as a form of social influence
A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order
The individual giving the orders usually a authority figure
Give an example of a study that investigates obedience
Milgrams baseline procedure - the influence of authority figures on obedience
what did milgram study and why
The influence of authority figures on obedience he couldn’t comprehend how those who were seemingly normal becoming involved in the atrocities of the nazi holocaust
Milgram believed answers for this switch might lie in the personality characteristics of German people (perhaps more susceptible)
How many participants were in Milgrams original investigation
40 American male volunteers
describe the baseline procedure of Milgrams study
Fake lots were drawn for the roles of ‘teacher’ + ‘learner’ (mr wallace) - ppt always ‘teacher’
The voltage was increased by 15 volt increments every time the ‘learner’ gave an incorrect/no answer
the learner gave verbal (fake) protests and eventually
went silent when 450 volts was reached
Experimenter used 4 prods when participant ‘teacher’ stopped e.g. you must go on
How many prods were used by the experimenter in Milgrams baseline procedure
4
what were the findings of Milgrams original investigation
65% went to the max 450v
All teachers showed signs of distress - 3 had seizures
All were debriefed after 84% said they were glad they participated
how many ‘teachers’ had a seizure
3
what % of participants gave the max voltage
65%
what % of participants gave the max voltage
65%
what % of participants said they were glad to have participated after having been debriefed
84%
what was the conclusion of Milgrams original investigation
Germans were not ‘different’ but variables in situations influence obedience - therefore Milgram conducted follow up studies on the effect of these variables
what is one way participants were deceived in Milgrams original investigation
Fake lots were drawn for the roles of ‘teacher’ + ‘learner’
give an ethical issue Milgrams research poses
Protection from harm - 3 ‘teachers’ had seizures due to distress
what was the strength of Milgrams original investigation
Research support -
Hofling et al found that 21 of 22 nurses in a real life hospital were willing to administer potentially lethal doses when ordered by a doctor
give two limitations of Milgrams original investigation
Unethical
Broke right to withdraw - ppts who wanted to stop with the ‘shocks’ were encouraged to continue via prods
deception + protection from harm - ppts believed the ‘learner’ was receiving ‘shocks’ which put ppts under
culture bias
the sample is unrepresentative of other cultures as it only uses white American males whilst collectivist cultures are more focused on the social group rather than the individual like in western cultures & so obedience levels may differ across cultures - limited application to a wider population
Low external validity - doesn’t consider gender differences - Sherridan and king , study with humans and puppies - puppies received real shocks if not followed instructions - 54% of men + 100% of women administered shocks when told to - suggests women are more likely to obey an authority figure
what were the three situational variables Milgram investigated in his follow up investigations
Proximity
Location
Uniform
describe Milgrams investigation into the situational variable proximity
When Teacher + learner were in the same room 40% level of obedience
When teacher puts learners hand on shock plate - 30% obedience
When experimenter constructs over the phone - 20.5% obedience
describe Milgrams investigation into the situational variable location
When experiment was in a rundown office block - 47.5% obedience
When held at Yale its legitimacy was passed on to experimenter + study - teacher feels forced/intimidated by legitimacy of Yale
describe Milgrams investigation into the situational variable uniform
When the experimenter was taken over by ‘ordinary person’ in own clothes - obedience was 20%
Uniform is correlated to authority and so entitled to obedience
which of Milgrams proximity condition experiments which produced the least obedience?
when the experimenter constructed over the phone - 20.5%
what is the strength of Milgrams situational variables follow up studies?
Research support
Uniform plays important role , Bickmans field experiment showed people are more likely to obey someone dressed as a guard rather than a milkman
what are two limitations of Milgrams situational variables follow up investigations
Gender differences
Milgram underestimated importance of differences e.g. women may be more susceptible to social influence proven by Sherridan and king study
Lack of internal validity
Orne and Holland criticise saying ppts figured out the shocks weren’t real - produces demand characteristics
Give an example of someone who operated in the agentic state
Adolf Eichmann - oversaw the logistics behind mass deportation of the Jews - he never denied his crimes but defended he was simply following orders
what is the autonomous state
When you act independently and feel responsibility
what is the agentic shift
When we perceive an authority figure (has a higher position in the social hierarchy) so we are more likely to obey
what is the agentic state
Acting as an ‘agent’
binding factors are used to minimise guilt/responsibility complete obedience to authority figure - following instructions
give two strengths of situational explanations as a way of explaining obedience
Research support for legitimacy & authority
Bickman had confederates dressed in different outfits (security guard, milkman) in New York confederates asked people to do things e.g. pick up litter - more likely to obey security guard
Cross cultural support for legitimate authority
Kilham + Mann replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia they found 16% of ppts went up to top voltage - Mantell found different figures for Germany - 85% - increases validity
give two limitations of situational explanations as an explanation for obedience
Limited explanation
Agentic shift does not explain why some of the ppts did not obey in Milgram’s study- dictates humans are social animals in a social hierarchy inclined to obey
Contradictory research
Rank + Jacobson found 16 out of 18 nurses refused to administer a lethal drug dose that they were familiar with when ordered by a doctor - replication of Hofling et al but with drug nurses knew
the agentic state is a _________ explanation for obedience
Situational
the two situational explanations for obedience are
The agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
most societies operate on a ______ and we learn to accept authority as legitimate early
Hierarchy
Acceptance of authority becomes problematic when the authority figure is __________
Destructive
Give examples of times an authority figure has become destructive
Stalin
Hitler
who proposed the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience
Adorno et al
the authoritarian personality is a _________ explanation
Dispositional
What did Adorno et al say high obedience is equivocal to
A psychological disorder caused by individual personality
give three features of the Authoritarian personality
Critical of society
Submissive to authority
Contempt for inferior social status - those who are othered
what are the 3 possible origins of the authoritarian personality
Harsh parenting
Impossibly high expectations
Conditions of love creates resentment + hostility displaced onto weaker substitutes
what did Adorno et al develop to measure the authoritarian personality
The f scale
how many white male Americans did Adorno et al test using the f scale
2000 white middle class male Americans
What did Adorno et al find when testing 2000 white male Americans using the f scale
A strong correlation between authoritarian and prejudice - those who scored high had definitive/separatist thinking + stereotyped identifying with the ‘strong’ and contempt for the weak
What are two strengths of the dispositional explanation as a way of explaining obedience
Research support
Elms & Milgram - those who scored high on the f scale gave the highest voltage to confederates
Real world application
Can explain the brutality behind Mei lei massacre + nazi holocaust
Give two limitations of the dispositional explanation to obedience
Political bias
F scale measures extreme right wing tendencies - Christie + Jahoda point out the reality of left wing authoritarianism in the Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism - not comprehensive dispositional explanation can’t account for whole political spectrum
Limited explanation + WW2 Germany
Tendency to give explanations for human behaviour when a large majority of Germans were just racist + identified with the anti semitic Nazi state
what is a situational explanation for resistance to social influence
Social support - having someone else resisting social pressure acts as a role model
What two things does social support lead to
Resisting conformity
Resisting obedience
what is resisting conformity
The presence of a dissenter gives others permission to follow their own conscience
what is resisting conformity
The presence of a dissenter gives others permission to follow their own conscience
Give an example of resisting conformity
Asch’s study , conformity dropped to 5% as ppts were encouraged to give correct answers
what is resisting obedience
The presence of a dissenter challenges the legitimacy of authority & frees others to follow their own conscience
Give an example of resisting obedience
Milgrams study - variations provided evidence of resistance to obedience
the presence of a _______ provides social support to resist social influence
Dissenter
what is a dispositional explanation for resistance to social influence
Locus of control - depends on our sense of how in control of our lives we are
Who proposed locus of control
Rutter
what is a low internal LOC
We are in control of our lives + responsible for our actions
why does having a low internal LOC make resistance easier
Believe they are responsible for their own actions and have qualities typically associated with leadership e.g. self confidence , higher intelligence
what is a high external LOC
We believe outside factors control our lives and determine our actions
A dissenter acts as a ____ _____ for others
Role model
what is a strength of social support as a way of explaining resistance to social influence
Research support
Gamson et al (1982) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram - role of dissenting peers in obedience - they were in groups - 29 out of 33 (88%) rebelled showing peer support is linked to greater resistance
what is a strength of LOC as a way of explaining resistance to social influence
Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study & measured whether ppts were internal or external - 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level compared to 23% externals did not continue - internals = greater resistance to authority
What is a limitation of LOC as a explanation for resistance to social influence
Research also contradicts LOC
Twenge (2004) analysed data from US obedient studies - data showed over time span people became more resistant to obedience & developed more external LOC - if it was linked to LOC people would have had internal LOC because resistance increased
