social influence

Question 1

internalization

Answer 1

Severe conformity, P’s genuinely accept groups opinion, changing both public and private opinions

Question 2

Identification

Answer 2

moderate conformity, P’s agree with opinions of group, but only changes public opinion when in group

Question 3

compliance

Answer 3

superficial conformity, only temporarily changes public opinion when in presence of group

Question 4

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

Answer 4

two process model for conformity - based on need to be right and need to be liked
need to be right - informational social influence - takes place when groups consensus strong and P believes group better informed, conforms to the opinion of the group - most likely when new to group - cognitive process
Normaitive social influence - adapts to the typical answer of the group - emotional - for social approval - most common when with strangers and people we care about

Question 5

Deutsch and Gerard AO3

Answer 5

+ Lucas et al (2006) - asked students answers to math problems in group settings - more likely to be influenced when doing higher level maths or rated their maths skills lower - supports ISI

• Individual differences in NSI - not everyone cares about being liked so respond differently.
• Deautsch and Gerard - originally stated that it was a result of one or other - but could be one process applied in different situations

Question 6

Milgrams obedience study (1963)

Answer 6

aim - to test why Germans followed the Nazis and committed atrocity’s
procedure - 14 P payed $4.50 on arrival - drew fixed lots, always drew teacher, C drew learner - P asked C question if and wrong give a fake electric shock - incremented shock each time - if refused to give shock 4 prods were given in order starting from the beginning each time the P refused if still refused after 4th prod experiment ends
prod 1 - please continue
prod 2 - the experiment requires you to continue
prod 3 - it is essential you continue
prod 4 - you have no other choice you must go on
all P’s debriefed after
results - 12.5% stopped at 300V (fatal) where C stopped responding - 65% went all the way to 450V (max) - all exhibited anxiety like symptoms with 3 P having seizures

Question 7

Ao3 milgrams baseline study

Answer 7

+ high validity - true to what is being studied
- ethical issue - prod 4 considered entrapment also deceived and failure to protect from harm
+ ethics - payed before and debriefed
- low internal validity orne and holland 1968 - Ps guessed shocks were not real when observing experiment
+ sheridan and king 1972 - recreated with puppys as learner and real shocks, 54% males delivered fatal shock 100% of females
+ hoffling et al - doctors gave nurses unethical instructions 21 of 22 obeyed
+ french recreation saw 80% deliver fatal shock

Question 8

milgrams situational variables

Answer 8

proximity - varied how close the experiment and learner was ( including and excluding line of sight) - 20.5% reached 450v when over the phone
location - changed from yale to run down offices - 47.5% reached 450V
uniform - removed experimenter from room and replaced with unqualified alt - obedience dropped to 20.5%

Question 9

AO3 milgrams situational variables

Answer 9

+ buckman 1974 - more likely to obey security guard than milkman or suit and tie when asked to pick up trash
- lacks internal validity - orne and holland still applies - could have heard of original study
+ miranda et al 1981 - spanish recreation with similar results
+ variables controlled and manipulated one at a time
- obedience alibi - gives nazis excuse for atrocity

Question 10

agentic state

Answer 10

agentic state - acting on behalf of someone in a position of power due the beilif that if you dont carry out the order someone else will do - often used as coping mechanism by passing blame to person above, no responsibility accepted

autonemy - accepting full responsibility for choices

agentic shift - shifting from autonemy to agentic state - occurs when given an instruction from an authoritative figure

binding factors - persons stays in the agentic state after order is complete - coping mechanism to ignore the damaging effects of behaviors, reducing moral strain

Question 11

AO3 agentic shift

Answer 11

• obediance alibi

- does not explain the anxiety felt by some but not all after action is complete

Question 12

legitimate and destructive authoritys

Answer 12

legitimate authoritys - authoritys are agreed on by society, giving individuals power
destructive authority - a legitimate authority that uses its power to cause harm

Question 13

legitimacy of authority AO3

Answer 13

+ blass and schmit 2001 - P’s shown milgrams - decided it was the experimenter at fault as he was giving the orders
+ real world application - holocaust my lai massacre

Question 14

authoritative personality

Answer 14

Fromm 1941 - first described authoritative personality - people with ridged beliefs, submissive to authority but not to others, hostile to minority’s

aderno et al 1950 - saw authoritative personality as insecure, hostile to change, in need of power and toughness, result of harsh parenting

Question 15

authoritative personality AO3

Answer 15

+ elms and milgram 1966 - original study p’s took f-scale test - more obedient correlated to higher score - but not in part that lined up with Authoritative personality
- not genralisable - social identity theory - people without auth personality still obey authority’s
+ Zither et al 1995 - f-scale on 16 nazi war criminals - scored highly on 9 sub sections

Question 16

resistance to SI

Answer 16

social support - easier to disobey if someone else is already dissenting, even if they have a third opinion
disobedient model - first person to dissent - allen and levine 1971 - conformity dropped on visual tasks when disobedient model present - asch dropped from 32% to 0.5% if model present from beginning

Question 17

social support AO3

Answer 17

Albrecht et al 2006 - stopping smoking for teens - those with non-smoking buddy (disobedient model) more likely to stop smoking
+ gamson et al 2006 - told to create oil company smear campaign - 88% rebelled

Question 18

locust of control

Answer 18

ratter 1966 - locust of control
internal locust of control - the individual is in control of the situation, does not obey, believes they can affect situation
external locust of control - the person believes an external authority is in control, more likely to obey, they believe
they cannot affect a situation
spector 1983 - 157 uni students - High LOC conformed more with NSI - neither with ISI
maghaddon 1998 - Japanese more likely to conform than americans

Question 19

minority influence

Answer 19

the process of a minority opinion spreading - P’s internalize the idea
social cryptoamnesia - process of the minority opinion being accepted by more and more people until it becomes the majority

flexibility - must compramise to apeal to people
noveth 1986 - 3p + 1 c decided compensation - if C firm on lower price decided price higher, if flexible decided proce lower

Question 20

moscovici 1976

Answer 20

majority influence based on compliance (NSI) minority influence based on ISI - 4 factors of minority influence
consistency
confidence in opinion
appearing unbiased
resisting majority influence
found consistency most important factor to disrupt norms
smith et al 1996 - longer a person considered a minority opinion the more likely they are to accept it
blue-green study - P’s had to decide if colour blue or green - 36 slides, 24 influenced 12 natural - 8.45% influenced if minority consistent, 1.25% if inconsistent

Question 21

moscovici et al 1969 et al

Answer 21

• low ecological value - lab study ignores the influence of other factors in real life decisions
• sampson 1991 - artificial group used, more likely to conform if p cared about opinion of the group
• not genralizable - only used female P’s
• deceit - Ps not fully informed before hand
• did not test other factors - ie group size, status. stress

Question 22

social change

Answer 22

minority ifluence leading to a paradigm shift - can be +itive or -itive- gradual process
producess very strong support as people think about new idea and internalize it rather than conform
critical mass - the point at which conformity and NSI take over from ISI as new idea becomes the majority
agent of change - desobediant model exhibits minority behaviour
crypto amnesia - people forgeting old norm and adopting the new paradigm, gradually happens