Social Influence Flashcards
Agentic state [2]:
- Person sees themselves as an agent carrying out another’s wishes
- e.g a nurse for a doctor
Why do ppl adopt the agentic state? [3]:
- To maintain a positive self-image
- Actions carried out under agentic state are not the ppt’s responsibility so doesn’t reflect on their self-image
- Their actions under agentic state are guilt-free
Binding factors to the agentic state [3]:
- To break off the experiment ppt must breech commitment made to the researcher
- Ppt fears that they will appear arrogant & rude & that behaviour has consequences
- Fear helps bind ppt to obedience
Legitimate authority [definition]:
A person who appears to be in social control of the situation
What is needed for a person to shift into the agentic state?
A legitimate authority
Milgram (1974)- legitimacy of authority [2]:
- There’s a shared expectation among ppl that many situations have a socially controlling figure
- so legitimate authority stems from the expectation that someone will b in charge not their individual character
Definitions of the situation [3]:
- There’s a tendency for ppl to accept definitions of a situation if presented by a legitimate authority
- Altho it is the ppt doing the shit they allow the authority figure to define what that means
- e.g researcher orders ppt to continue zappin which reassures the ppt that the person is not in pain despite the obvious pain on their face
Institution [3]:
- Legitimate authority requires an institution
- If an authority’s commands are potentially harmful or destructive they need an institution to back em so that they look legit e.g university, military
- Milgram’s findings = don’t have to be v reputable or distinguished institution
Agentic state evaluation- Sadism [4]:
- Sum ppl believe that ppt had signs of cruelty and they used the situation to express their impulses
- Zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment
- In just a few days, the guards inflicted rapid cruelty in the increasingly submissive inmates even tho no one asked
- Shows some obedience may be just cus of sadism
Agentic state evaluation- Shifting [4]:
- Milgram claims that ppl shift back & forth from agentic & autonomous states
- Lifton (1986)
- Found that drs were gradually & irreversibly changing from ppl who wanted to help ppl into ppl capable of carrying out vile/lethal experiments on helpless prisoners
- Suggests its irreversible not back and forth
Agentic state evaluation- Loss of control [4]:
- Fennis & Aarts (2012) claim
- agentic shift is more likely where personal control is lost
- Under these circumstances ppl show an increased obedience to authority and bystander apathy
- so agentic shift is not only obedience but can be low locus of internal control so its incomplete
Agentic state evaluation- support for legitimate authority power [4]:
+ Tarnow (2000)
+ Made a review of all serious aircraft incidents between 1978- 1990 with flight voice recorder where crew were partly responsible for crash
+ Found excessive dependence on Cptn’s authority and expertise
+ 19/37 accidents provide real-life support for power of legitimate authority
What are the situational factors affecting obedience? [3]:
- Proximity
- Location
- Uniform
Milgram (1963) procedure [5]:
- 40 ppts
- 2 confederates; researcher & 47 yo man acting as a volunteer
- The two ppts drew lots to see who would be the teacher & learner, it was rigged so fake ppt was always learner
- Teacher had to test learner’s ability to remember word pairs, student was in another room giving mainly false ans
- every time they got sumn wrong teacher had to administer an increasingly strong electric shock (max 450v/ going up by 15v)
Fake learner shock endurance- milgram [3]:
- Fake learner received shocks in silence until they reached 300 volts
- At 300+v learner pounded on wall and gave no response to questions
- If ‘teacher’ asked to stop researcher would say shit like ‘it is absolutely essential that u continue’ or ‘u have no other choice, u must go on’
Milgram (1963) findings [4]:
- Milgram asked psych students to predict results b4 study = they thought no one would go over 150v
- They also predicted only 1 in 1000 would get to 450v
- ACC 26/40 (65%) got to the full 450volts despite it being labelled ‘danger: sever shock’ at 420v
- All ppt went over 300v only 5 stopped at 300v where learner 1st objects
Milgram- Proximity [3]:
- Teacher & learner in same room = obedience levels fell to 40%
- In extreme variation ppt had to force learners hand on shock plate which decreased obedience to 30%
- Obedience decreased to 21% when ppt given instruction over the phone (proximity to rsrcher matters)
Milgram- Location [4]:
- Study conducted at yale uni
- ppt remarked that location gave em confidence in the integrity of the rsrchrs
- Study in rundown office = obedience decreased
- Only 48% ppt delivered max 450v shock
The power of uniform on obedience [3]:
- Bushman (1988)
- Female researcher dressed as a policeman, business executive or beggar,
- and stopped ppl in the street telling them to give change to a male rsrchr for parking meter
Power of uniform stats- bushman [3]:
- 72% of ppl obeyed to police uniform
- 48% for business executive
- 52% for beggar
Milgram obedience research ao3- Temporal validity [4]:
+ His researcher has shown temporal validity
+ Burger (2009)
+ Found almost identical levels of obedience 46 yrs later
+ Shows his theory withstands test of time
Milgram obedience research ao3- they knew bruh [4]:
- Perry (2012)
- discovered that many of Milgram’s ppts doubted that the shocks were real
- Milgram’s research assistant Murata split ppts into doubters & believers & found latter group more likely to disobey
- challenges validity & suggests that when faced real consequences ppl more likely to disobey
Milgram obedience research ao3- Research support [4]:
+ Durkin & Jeffery (2000)
+ They asked 5-9yos to identify who was able to make an arrest
+ Kids picked person currently wearing uniform but isn’t acc an officer
+ Suggests kids’ initial on authority are abt appearance
Milgram obedience research ao3- Ethical issues [4]:
- Ppt didn’t feel like they had the right to withdraw
- this cus researcher would say shit like
- ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’ & ‘You have no other choice u must go on’
- This makes study less reliable as he compromised on ethics
Authoritarian personality [definition]:
Ppl who have strong adherence to conventional values & believe in absolute obedience/ submission to authority
What is the F scale? [3]:
- Made in California 1947
- ‘Fascism scale’
- A measure of authoritarian traits/ tendencies
Adorno et al (1950) [4]:
- Used F-scale to c what makes authoritarian personality
- ‘rules r there for ppl to follow not change’ ‘obedience & rspct 4 authrity r the most important values for child to follow’
- Ppl who tended to agree had authoritarian personality
- Ppl who scored high on f tended to be raised by prnts w/ authoritarian parenting style
What are some characteristics of the authoritarian personality according to Adorno [3]:
- rigid thinkers who obey authority
- See world as black & white
- enforce strict adherence to social rules & hierarchies
How do children acquire authoritarian personalities? [2]:
- Grow up in authoritarian family w/ emphasis on obedience
- acquire authoritarian attitudes thru process of learning
& imitation
Right-wing authoritarianism [5]:
- Altemeyer (1981)
- High RWA ppl possess 3 characteristics
- Conventionalism
- Authoritarian Aggression
- Authoritarian Submission
Conventionalism [explanation]:
Adherence to conventional norms and values like having children
Altemeyer (1981) [5]:
- Ppt ordered to give themselves increasing lvl of shocks when they messed up on learning task
- NO significant correlation between RWA & lvl of shocks
- Also large red button labelled ‘do not push this button unless u are instructed to do so’
- At end of experiment ppts ordered to push button to give emselves an extra shock for ‘not trying’
- Participant’s lvl of RWA lowkey irrelevant cus most ppt did it
Elms & Milgram (1996)- Procedure [5]:
- Used ppts from Milgram’s study 2 months ago
- Selected 20 obedient ppts & 20 defiant ppts
- Each ppt completed the MMPI-scale & F-scale
- Ppts also asked abt their relationship w/ their parents during childhood
- & their attitude towards ‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ from b4
Elms & Milgram (1996)- Findings [4]:
- Lil difference between obedient & defiant ppt on MMPI
- Higher lvls of authoritarianism among obedient ppts
- Obedient ppts reported being less close with their dads
- Obedient ppts saw researcher as more admirable & learner less so.
- This wasn’t the case for defiant ppts
Authoritarian personality ao3- Education [3]:
- Middendorp & Meloen found that ppl who r less educated r consistently more authoritarian than more educated ppl
- Milgram also found that less-educated ppts were more obedient
- Lack of education may be what’s acc causing obedience, not authoritarianism
Authoritarian personality ao3- Research support [4]:
+ Ppl were sus abt whether ppts believed shocks were real
+ Dambrun & Vantine overcame this by using ‘immersive virtual environment’
+ Ppts watched actor on screen & were informed victim screams not real
+ Despite this ppts still responded like it was real/ clear correlation between RWA & obedience
Authoritarian personality ao3- Diff between authoritarian & obedient [3]:
- Elm’s & Milgram’s research presented important diff in characteristics of obedient pts & authoritarian pts
- e.g when asked abt their upbringing, fully obedient ppts reported v good relationship w/ parents rather than strict environment that would cause authoritarian
- Suggests authoritarianism ain’t really the cause
Authoritarian personality ao3- Left-wing [4]:
+ If rightwing obedient then leftwing should be more disobedient
+ Begue et al (2014)
+ Replicated milgram’s study as fake game show
+ the lefter they are the lower the shocks they gave
What are the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence?
- Social support
- Locus’ of control
Social support [definition]:
The perception that an individual has assistance from other ppl & that they r part of a supportive network
Social support on resisting conformity [4]:
- Asch (1956)= social support enables ppl to resist conformity pressure
- In a variation of his study social support of an ally reduced conformity from 33% to 5.5%
- It breaks the unanimous position of the majority
- doing this raises possibility that there are other legitimate ways of responding
What was the percentage reduction when an ally was added to Asch’s study?
From 33% to 5.5% conformity
Social support on resisting obedience [3]:
- It is hard to stand against authority cus obedience of others makes even sumn evil seem acceptable
- Research shows that individuals more confident in ability to disobey if they have an ally
- Disobedient peers act as role models
Social support on resisting obedience- Milgram [3]:
- Variation where ppt in teams of 3 with 2 confederates
- Confederates continued to refuse shocking learner
- Only 10% of ppts continued to max shock 450v
Locus of control [explanation]:
Refers to person’s perception of control of their own behaviour
External locus of control =
Believe what happens to them is due to external factors/ forces e.g others or luck
Internal locus of control =
Believe We control events in our life. What happens to u is a result of ur own ability & effort
Characteristics of External locus of control [4]:
- Tend to approach events with passive/ fatalistic attitude
- Take less personal responsibility for their behaviour
- Less likely to display independence
- More likely to accept influence of others
Characteristics of Internal Locus of control [3]:
- More likely to display independence in thought & behaviour
- Rely less on opinions of others
- so better able to resist social influence
Spector 1982 =
High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented so more likely to become leaders
Hutchins & Estey 1978 =
High internals r better able to resist coercion from interrogator in simulated war camp
Social support ao3- Research support [3]:
+ Rees & Wallace (2015)
+ Teens with a majority of friends who drink alcohol r significantly more likely to binge drink
+ Suggests social support help break laws lmao
Social support ao3- In real life [4]:
+ The Rosenstrasse protest is an example of milgram’s theories irl
+ 1943 a group of german women protested cus Gestapo were holding 2000 Jewish men
+ Despite the Gestapo threatening to open fire they eventually released the men
+ The disobedient peers gave each other courage & confidence even in life-threatening situations
Social support ao3- Response order [4]:
+ Allen & Levine (1969)
+ Confederate answered 1st giving correct answer then other confederates answered wrong (ppt always 5th)
+ Confederate answered 4th after all wrong answers
+ Ppt more likely to not conform in position 1 cus correct 1st answer confirms ppts judgement
Locus of control ao3- Normative influence [4]:
+ Spector 1983
+ Measured locus of control & predosposition to normative & informational influence of 157 undergrads
+ Significant correlation btwn externals & normative influence
+ No relationship btwn informational influence & locus of control so it doesn’t work as explanation for info
Locus of control ao3- Ppl more external these days [3]:
- Twenge et al (2004)
- meta-analysis found that young Americans increasingly external
- Research scores have been increasingly more external btwn 1960-2000
Locus of control ao3- Research support [4]:
+ Avtgis (1998)
+ meta-analysis on studys abt relation btwn locus of ctrl & types of social influence e.g conformity
+ +ve correlation btwn external/internal & scores on measures of persuasion
+ Externals tended to be persuaded more easily & conform more
What are the factors needed to convince a majority? [3]:
- Consistency
- Commitment
- Flexibility
Minority influence- consistency; explanation
[2]:
- When exposed to minority with diff view, majority assume that minority are in error
- If consistent approach others/ maj come to reassess sitch & consider issue more carefully
Minority influence- consistency; research [4]:
- Wood et al (1994)
- meta-analysis of 97 minority influence studies
- minorities perceived as consistent were more influential
- Moscovici et al
Minority influence- Commitment; explanation [4]:
- Difficult to dismiss a minority that adopts an uncompromising & consistent commitment to its position
- This cus it suggests certainty, confidence & courage in the face of a hostile majority
- joining minority comes w/ greater consequence than staying w/ maj
- so commitment may persuade maj members
Minority influence- Flexibility [3]:
- Mugny (1982)
- flexibility is more effective at changing maj opinion than rigid arguments
- Mugny distinguished btwn flexible 7 rigid minority = rigid
refuse to compromise at the risk of looking dogmatic
Moscovici et al- procedure [5]:
- Moscovici 1969
- 32 groups; had 4 naive ppts & 2 confederates (minority)
- Shown a series of blue sides that only varied in intensity & asked to judge their colour
- consistent trail= feds repeatedly called blue slides green
- Inconsistent trial= only called slides green 1/3 of the trial
Moscovici et al- Control [3]:
- 6 naive ppts
- no confederates
- ppts called the slides blue thruout
Moscovici et al- findings [3]:
- Consistent minority influenced naive maj to say green over 8% of the trials
- Inconsistent minority had v lil influence that was barely diff from ctrl group
- 32% gave the same answer as the minority at least once
Minority influence ao3- research support flexibility [4]:
+ Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987)
+ Simulated jury sitch- group members discussed compensation amount for victim of ski lift accident
+ When fed put alt pov & refused to compromise it had no effect
+ Fed who did compromise showed sum degree shift in maj
Minority influence ao3- Difficulty [4]:
- Even if it does help, convincing majority is still hard - Nemeth
- Ppl accept principle only on surface but quickly become irritated
- They may also fear ruining the harmony in the group
- As a consequence majority views persist
Minority influence ao3- helps rethink [3]:
+ Nemeth argues minority influence ‘opens the mind’
+ Exposure to minority opinion makes ppl search for info, consider more options & make better decisions
+ This helps to improve majorities decision so its a +ve impact
Minority influence ao3- Lab setting [4]:
- Most minority influence studies are lab experiments
- Ppts in experiment groups aren’t ‘real’ groups, they prolly don’t know each other & task is artificial
- Lab experiments have low ecological validity
- Reduces overall validity of findings
