Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A-level Psychology > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

define obedience

A

obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. the person usually who gives the order has a position of power or authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

why Milgram conducted his research

A

Milgram 1963 wanted to understand why a high amount of germans supported hitler’s plans to slaughter 6 million Jews in the Holocaust during WW2
He wanted to know if Germans were different and were more obedient so proposed a study obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Milgram’s procedure 11

A
  • recruited 40 men
  • paid $4.50 to participate
  • aged between 20-50
  • a confederate was placed as a learner. there was also an experimenter who was an actor
  • the learner was strapped into a chair and was given electric shocks by the participant/teacher
  • participants were deceived there were no electric shocks
  • the voltage started at 15 volts light shock to 450 fatal
  • at 315 volts the learner pounded on the wall and after that there was no further response
  • if the teacher was unsure about the experiment the experiment would use one of four prompts
  • please continue
  • experiment requires you to continue
  • its essential you continue
  • you have no other choice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Milgrams Findings

A
  • no participants stopped below 300 volts
    12. 5% stopped at 300 volts
  • 65% continued to the highest level
  • Qualitative data was also collected with participants showing signs of extreme tension and anxiety
  • participants behaved this way because of the influence of the experimenter
  • after the experiment participants were fully debriefed and 84% said they were glad to have participated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Milgrams situational variables

proximity

A

-physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Milgrams situational variables

proximity findings

A

in original study, the teacher and learning were in adoring rooms, the proximity experiment they were in the same room, obedience dropped from the baseline 65% to 40%
in another experiment the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the electric shock plate, obedience dropped further to 30%
in 3rd proximity variation, the experimenter gave the teacher instructions over the phone obedience dropped to 20.5%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgrams situational variables

location

A
  • change the location of the study

- he conducted a variation in a run down building rather than the prestigious Yale University

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgrams situational variables

location findings

A

the experimenter had less authority

obedience fell to 47.5% which is still quite high but lower than the original 64%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgrams situational variables

Uniform

A

in original study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of authority
carried out a variation where the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure and a normal member of the public took his place in ordinary clothes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Milgrams situational variables

Uniform findings

A

-the obedience rate dropped form 65% to 20% the lowest of the variations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgrams experiment situational variable evaluation

Research support

A

field experiment in New York city Blacman 1974 had 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman outfit and security guard uniform. asked the public do tasks including giving the confederates a coin. people were twice as likely to conform to the security guard
-uniform is more likely to produce obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Milgrams experiment situational variable evaluation

Lack of internal validity

A
  • orne and holland criticised milgram claiming participants saw through deception
  • due to the extra manipulation
  • this is shown through the convenience of the experimenter being replaced by a member of the public where even Milgram admitted the situation was so contrived participants could have seen the truth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Milgrams experiment situational variable evaluation

Control of variables

A

systematically altered one variable at a time and kept the others the same - no extraneous variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

define the agentic state

A
  • the agentic state is where we feel no personal responsibility because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. this frees us of our consciences and allows us to obey even an destructive authority figure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

why did Milgram study the agent static and what did he propose

A

interest sparked after the trail of Adolf Eichmann 1961 who was in charge of Nazi concentration camps for war crimes
but claimed he was only obeying order
this led Milgram to determine that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesnt take responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

define the autonomous state

A

the opposite of the agentic state -a person is free to act according to their own principles so are feeling responsibility for their own actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

define the agentic shift

A

the shift from autonomous to agentic
this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a person of authority
this person has greater authority due to their position in a social hierarchy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

define binding factors in the agentic shift

A

are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they are feeling
e.g. shifting the Blame onto the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

define the legitimacy of authority

A

we are more likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us
this person is justified by their position of power in a social hierarchy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

destructive authority

A

understanding of the behaviour of Hitler Stalin etc
can use their legitimate power for destruction
destructive personality was shown in Milgrams study when the experimenter used prods in order to get participants to behave in ways that went against their conscious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Milgram social-psychological factors evaluation

real life crimes

A

a strength of the legitimacy of authority explains how obedience can lead to real life war crimes including My Lai Massacre in 1968

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

evaluation of Milgram’s agentic state

research support

A

Blass and Schmitt 2001 showed a film of Milgrams study to students and asked them to describe who they thought was responsible for the harm to the learner
the students blamed the experimenter rather than the participants
also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority as the experimenter was top of the hierarchy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

evaluation of Milgram’s agentic state

a limited explanation

A

the agentic shift doesnt explain many the research findings
it doesnt explain why some of the participants did not obey authority
agentic shift doesnt explain Hofling et al’s study where 21 out of 22 nurses administered an unknown drug as the nurses should have experienced anxiety for their destructive role but did not

24
Q

evaluation of Milgram’s legitimacy of authority

cultural differences

A

many studies show that there is a difference in the degree people are obedient to traditional authority country to country
Kilham and Mann 1974 replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found only 16% went all the way to the top
Mantell 1971 replicated Milgram’s procedure in Germany and fond 85% went all the way to the top
shows that in some cultures people are more likely to be obedient and accepted as legitimate
reflects how different societies are formed and how children are raised
supportive findings from cross-cultural studies increase the validity

25
Q

what were the aims of adorno et al 1950

A

they wanted to understand the anti semitism of the holocaust
drew very different conclusions to Milgram
came to believe obedience was basically a psychological disorder

26
Q

what was the procedure of adorno et al 1950

A 
investigated the cause of obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups 
developing the fascism scale or f scale which is used to measure authoritarian personality
27
Q

what were the findings of adorno et al 1950

A

-people with autoritiarian leaning scored high on the f scale identified with strong people who were contemptuous of the weak
very conscious of their own and others stats showing excessive respect of those of higher status
-authoritarian people had fixed distinctive stereotypes of other people and there was no fuzziness between categories
there was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

28
Q

dispositional explanation

A

an explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individuals personality

29
Q

authoritarian characteristics

A

a type of personality that adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority
people show contempt to those who have a lower status than them
highly controversial attitudes towards racism sexism and homophobia
inflexible outlook

30
Q

origin of the authoritarian personality

A

concluded that it formed in childhood
strict parenting style and severe criticism of perceived failings
characterised by conditional love
this creates resentment and hostility in the child but they cant express their feelings directly against their parent through fear of reprisal
so fear is displaced onto those who are perceived to be weaker explains central trait of higher authority and a hared for those inferior a psychodynamic explanation

31
Q

evaluation of the dispositional explanation (authoritarian personality)
political bias

A

the F-scale measures tenedcies towards political right-wing ideology
Christie and Jahoda 1954 argued this is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality
-left wing authoritarianism such as Chinese Maoism, also portray the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority which is reflected also in the right wing views
therefore is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation of obedience across the whole political spectrum

32
Q

evaluation of the dispositional explanation (authoritarian personality)
research support

A

Milgram and Alan 1966 elms conducted interviews with a small sample of those who scored highly on the f scale
there was a correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality

HOWEVER, there could be a third factor correlation doesnt equal causation makes it impossible to draw the conclusions that an authoritarian personality causes obedience
authoritarian personality and obedience may be related to lower standard of ecduation and not related at all

33
Q

evaluation of the dispositional explanation (authoritarian personality)

A

explanation of obedience in terms of indiviudal personality may be hard to generalise to the whole country’s population.
for example in pre-war Germany many displayed anti-Semitic and racism and obedient behaviour
this was despite the fact their personality would have differed
it was unlikely they all had an authoritarian personality
a limitation as it is clear than there is a much more plausible explanation of social identity -as argued by Daniel goldhagen 1966 argued hitlers willing executioners the majority of the germans identified with anti Semitic state and scapegoated the outgroup of Jewish community

34
Q

resistance to social influence definition

A

refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or authority. –

influenced by both situational and dispositional factors
social support can help people resist authority

35
Q

define social support through conformity

A

social support can help resist conformity
the person conforming shown by Asch’s experiment doesn’t not have to have the right answer but simply another person not following the majority can help them act on their own conscience

36
Q

define social support through obedience

A

pressure to obey can be reduce if there is another person who appears to disobey
in one of Milgrams variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when there was a disobedient participant
they may not follow the disobedient persons behaviour but they act as a model so they can act from their own conscience

37
Q

define locus of control

A

Julian rotter 1996 continum called locus of control

  • internal are controlled by themselves
  • externals happen without their control
38
Q

define internal locus of control

A

believe that things that happened to themselves are largely controlled by themselves

39
Q

define external locus of control

A

have a tendency to believe that things that happened to themselves happen without their own control

40
Q

define the continuum in locus of control

A

people differ in the way they explain their successes and failures but isn’t simply a matter of external and internal
there is a continuum of high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other with low ex and low in lying in between

41
Q

resistance of social influence in terms of LOC

A

people who have internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to confirm or obey
as they believe that everything happens is due to their own actions so are more likely to act on their own free will
also tend to be more self-confident

42
Q

evaluation of social support

resistance to conformity

A

supports the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity
Allen and Levine 1971 found that conformity decreased where there was one dissenter in Asch-type research
more importantly, this continued when the dissenter wore thick classes and said he had difficulty with his vision
resistance isn’t about following someone else but enables someone to be free of group pressure

43
Q

evaluation of social support

resistance to obedience

A

Gamson et al 1982 found 29/33 participants 88% rebelled showing peer support leads to greater resistance as they were in groups
Gamson found higher levels of resistance than Milgram as their participants were in groups

44
Q

evaluation of locus of control

contradictory research

A

twinge et al 2004 analysed data from American locus control studies over 40 years 1960-2002. people have become more resistant to obedience and more external. if resistance were linked to an internal locus of control it would be more internal
this challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance

45
Q

evaluation of locus of control

research support

A

supports the link between LOC and resistance
Holland 1967 repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals
found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level compared to 23% of externals
internals showed greater resistance to authority
research increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance

46
Q

minority influence consistent

A

minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. its effective as it draws attention

47
Q

minority influence commitment

A

minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position

48
Q

minority influence flexibility

A

relentless consistency could be counter productive if its seen by the majority as unreasonable

49
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 procedure 4

minority influence

A
  • participants shown 36 slides in different shades of blue after colour blind test
  • in the 1st part of the experiment the 2 confederates answered green for each of the slides- they were consistent
  • in the 2nd part they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times -inconsistent
  • and a control group was used
50
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 results 3

minority influence

A
  • in the consistent condition - 8.42% if the participants answered green and 32% conformed at least once
  • in the inconsistent condition 1.25% of the participants answered green
  • in the control group only 0.25%
51
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 conclusion 2

minority influence

A
  • minorities can influence majorities

- minorities have more influence when the answer were more consistent than inconsistent

52
Q

minority influence

process of change

A

if you hear something different to what you are think think its stops and makes you think about it
overtime more people will join the minority ‘the snowball effect’

53
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 evaluation

research support for consistency

A

moscovici et al study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect than an inconsistent opinion

54
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 evaluation

research support for depth of thought

A

Martin et al 2003 gave participants a message supporting a particular outcome and measured their support. one group heard the minority agree with the initial view while other heard the majority. then they were less exposed to a conflicting view. less people changed their views with the minority.

55
Q

Moscovici et al 1969 evaluation

research support for internalisation

A

in a variation of Moscovici’s experiment participants wrote their answers down so were private. private agreement with the minority was greater. members of the group were being convinced by the minority but reluctant to admit public variation

A-level Psychology (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions