social influence Flashcards
internalization
Severe conformity, P’s genuinely accept groups opinion, changing both public and private opinions
Identification
moderate conformity, P’s agree with opinions of group, but only changes public opinion when in group
compliance
superficial conformity, only temporarily changes public opinion when in presence of group
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
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
Deutsch and Gerard AO3
+ 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
Milgrams obedience study (1963)
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
Ao3 milgrams baseline study
+ 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
milgrams situational variables
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%
AO3 milgrams situational variables
+ 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
agentic state
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
AO3 agentic shift
- obediance alibi
- does not explain the anxiety felt by some but not all after action is complete
legitimate and destructive authoritys
legitimate authoritys - authoritys are agreed on by society, giving individuals power
destructive authority - a legitimate authority that uses its power to cause harm
legitimacy of authority AO3
+ 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
authoritative personality
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
authoritative personality AO3
+ 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
resistance to SI
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
social support AO3
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
locust of control
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
minority influence
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
moscovici 1976
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
moscovici et al 1969 et al
- 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
social change
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
