social influence

Question 1

what’s the definition of conformity?

Answer 1

a change in a persons behavior or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or a group of people

Question 2

what are the variables that may lead to an increase or decrease in conformity?

Answer 2

Group size (+ in group size) 
Unanimity ( - in conformity) 
Task difficulty (+ conformity)

Question 3

What was Asch’s Baseline procedure?

Answer 3

aim : to observe what extent people conform to others
procedure
- 123 american men
- each participant saw two large white cards on each trial
- standard line is compared to comparison lines ABC. one is the the same length as standard line. the others are clearly different. Each participant had to say out loud their answers
- were tested in groups of 6-8, only one being a genuine (naïve) participant, the rest we’re Asch’s confederates, they all gave the same incorrect answer

Question 4

What were the findings of Aschs study?

Answer 4

on average, genuine participants agreed with confederates incorrect answers 36.8% of the time 25% of participants never conformed

Question 5

What are the three types of conformity?

Answer 5

Internalization (accepts group norms, change of opinion inside and out) permanent
Identification (something about the group we value, may not privately agree but publicly change opinion)
Compliance ‘going along with others ‘ - publicly agree but not privately. superficial change, as pressure changes as soon as pressure stops

Question 6

what are the two explanations of conformity?

Answer 6

NSI- we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked. may lead to compliance (evidence in aschs study)
ISI- we agree with the majority of the opinion because we believe it is correct. we accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalization ( evidence in Lucas et Al)

Question 7

What is the Zimbardo Prison experiment? procedure

Answer 7

-set up in a mock prison in the psychology department of stanford university.
- 21 men (student volunteers) who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
- randomly assigned to play the role of a prisoner or a prison guard
- encouraged to conform to social roles through uniform and instructions about behavior
-UNIFORMS: prisoners were given a loose smock to wear and a cap to cover their hair, were identified by number. this all created a loss of identity and meant they would be more likely to conform to the social role

Question 8

What is obedience?

Answer 8

Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order, from a person who is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish if obedient behavior is not forth coming

Question 9

What took place in Milgrams research?

Answer 9

40 American men
assigned the role or Teacher, learner and experimenter. Assigned ‘randomly’ however they weren’t actually (the participants were all assigned as the Teacher, with confederates as the experimenter / learner.) E was dressed in a gray lab coat)
study aimed to assess obedience where the experimenter would order the participant to give increasingly strong shocks to a learner located in a different room (15 volt steps up to 450 volts)
-Ps were debriefed after and ensured that their behavior was normal. 84% said they were glad to participate
-4 prods

Question 10

what were the Findings to milgrams study?

Answer 10

• every participant delivered shocks up to 300 volts. 5 stopped at 300, and 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts
• milgram also collected qualitative data ( observing behaviors) participants showed signs of extreme tensions- sweat, tremble, bite nails and dig them into hands, 3 had uncontrollable seizures
• findings were unexpected at Milgram previously asked 14 psychology students how they thought the experiment would go- they predicted only 3% would reach 450v.

Question 11

what inspired Milgram?

Answer 11

The trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961. Adolf was being charged for war crimes. he was in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defense was that he was only following orders. This led Milgram to propose that obedience to destructive authority figures was because the individual lacked responsibility, claiming that the are acting for someone else. People who feel this feel create anxiety when realizing wat they are doing is wrong, how ever feel they cannot disobey.

Question 12

what is the Agentic state? (situational explanations of obedience)

Answer 12

• ‘agent’ feeling as you are acting for someone else in authority and have no responsibility for behavior
• people under the agentic state to a figure of destructive authority usually feel a high anxiety strain on morals however feel they cannot disobey

Question 13

describe legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience. (situational explanations of obedience)

Answer 13

• legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we see to have authority over us.
• This is determined by the social hierarchy. (certain people hold authority over us, agreed by society)

one consequence of authority is people in power are then permitted to punish others. Can be used in a fair and trustworthy way however can also be used for wrong doing (destructive authority.

Question 14

what’s the dispositional explanation for obedience?

Answer 14

The Authoritarian Personality

Question 15

describe social support as a reason for resistance to social influence.

Answer 15

resisting conformity: conforming to the majority can be resisted if there are people present who are not conforming.
-as shown is ‘Asch’s study’ the confederate who is not conforming may not be giving the right answer, but the fact they are not conforming gives the participant a model for independence and will to follow their own conscience.

resisting obedience: chance of being obedient decreases when there is another person who is disobeying. As shown in Milgram’s study, when a confederate was met with the participant and disobeyed in the process, obedience levels dropped from 65% to 10%.

Question 16

Describe Locus of Control as an explanation for resisting social influence

Answer 16

refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives

• Internal Locus of Control; internals believe that what happens to them are controlled by themselves. Example, I did well in an exam because I worked hard
• External Locus of Control: Externals believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors. For example, I did well because I has a good text book.

Locus of Control is on a continuum- high external at one end and high internal at the other. People with high internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist to social influence, as they base their decisions on their own beliefs and not others. They are usually more likely to be leaders that the status below.

Question 17

What is Minority influence?

Answer 17

a form of social influence where the minority (sometimes just one person) convinces others to adopt their beliefs attitudes or behaviors. Most likely to lead to internalization, both public and private beliefs change.

Question 18

what are the ways a minority can influence people?

Answer 18

Consistency: the minority must be consistent on their views
-increases interest
-synchronic consistency (they are saying the same thing
-diachronic consistency (they have been saying the same thing for some time now)
-makes other people start to rethink their views ‘maybe they have a point if they keep saying it’
Commitment: the minority must demonstrate commitment in their view. A lot of minorities engage in extreme activities to get their point across. These risky actions show great commitment in what they are doing.
-Majority groups then pay more attention. ‘wow, she really must believe in what she’s saying, I aught to consider her view. (augmentation principle)
Flexibility: Nemeth argued that consistency can be off putting. Someone who repeats the same arguments and actions may be seen as rigid an dogmatic
- members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments.
-balance between consistency and flexibility

Question 19

steps in how minority influence creates social change

Answer 19

1) drawing attention: through social proof e.g. civil rights marches drew attention and provided social proof to the problem
2) consistency: e.g. civil rights activists maintained the same non aggressive messages and marches throughout several years
3) deeper processing: e.g. people who had accepted the message before started to deeply process it
4) the augmentation principle: e.g. civil rights activists took risks like sitting on the bus which indicates a strong belief and augments their message
5) the snowball effect: spreading, e.g. activists slowly got attention towards the government as more and more people backed the minority position, marking a change from minority to majority.
6) social cryptomnesia: people have a memory that change occurred but don’t recall how it happened.

Question 20

What are the characteristics that Adorno claims a person that has a Authoritarian Personality has?

Answer 20

-extreme respect and submissiveness to authority
-believe society as ‘weaker’ than it was, so powerful and traditional leaders are needed.
-love for country and family
-contempt to those with an inferior status (hatred)- fueled by their inflexible outlook on the world
-not comfortable with uncertainty, no grey areas, so people who are ‘other’ are responsible for the ills of society
-these people are convenient targets for the authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even if it is destructive
-

Question 21

what forms the Authoritarian Personality in a person?

Answer 21

• Adorno believed that it was due to harsh parenting: strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, and impossibly high standards and severe criticism on perceived failures. Critical love: ‘will love you if’
• these childhood experiences create hostility in a child, but they cannot express this to their parents due to fear of punishment, so therefore hostility is displaced on others who they perceive as weaker. (scapegoating)
• psychodynamic explanation

Question 22

what took place in Adorno et Al’s research?

Answer 22

• studied 2000 middle class white Americans in their unconscious attitudes to other ethnicities
• developed several measurement scales, including the ‘potential for fascism scale’ (F-scale)

Question 23

What were the findings for Adorno et Al’s research on the Authoritarian personality type?

Answer 23

• people with Authoritarian leanings in the measurements identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’.
• showed extreme respect and servility to those in a higher status and authority, basis traits of obedience .
• Adorno also found a certain cognitive style: no fuzziness between categories of people. Had distinctive stereotypes about other groups.
• strong positive correlations between authoritarianism and prejudice

Question 24

variables investigated by Asch- group size and findings

Answer 24

-wanted to know if the size of the group would be more important than the agreement of the group. To test this he varied the number of confederates from 1 to 15. He found a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity rate.
-Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point. group of three confederates conformity rose to 31.8%. They soon leveled off. Suggest presence of one or two are enough to sway an opinion

Question 25

variables investigated by Asch- unanimity and findings

Answer 25

-wondered if presence of a non conforming person would affect conformity. Genuine P conformed less often with the dissenter present. Rate decreased by less than a quarter when the majority were unanimous. The presence of a dissenter seemed to enable the P to be more independent. This was true even when the dissenter disagreed with the P.

Question 26

variables investigated by Asch- Task difficulty and findings

Answer 26

wanted to know whether making the task harder would affect conformity. Made the lines more similar in length over time. ISI was displayed as conformity was increased as the task got harder.

Question 27

Conformity- Asch’s research evaluation limitations

Answer 27

-artificial task and situation. Demand characteristics as they new they were being studied. trival task made there no reason not to conform. The group was not identified as very groupy meaniny we also cannot generalize these findings to the RW
-limited application: american men. Other research suggest woman may be more conformist due to maybe being more concerned about social relationships.
Also America is an individualistic culture- other study with collectivist such as china showed greater conformity rates.

Question 28

Conformity- Asch’s research evaluation strength and COUNTERPOINT

Answer 28

+research support on task difficulty. Lucas et al maths problem study with hard and easy questions. Conformity was higher with harder maths questions. This shows ash is correct in one variable that affects conformity
-COUNTERPOINT: lucas et als study found conformity may be more complex than Asch suggested. Ps with higher confidence confirmed less that low confidence. Shows individual level factors that asch did not research can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables.

Question 29

strength of NSI

Answer 29

+evidence support. Asch interviewed his Ps and some said they conformed because they felt self conscious giving the correct answer because they didnt want disapproval. When Ps wrote their answer down, conformity fell to 12.5%. Meant there was no normative group pressure. Shows that in some parts conformity is due to desire to not be rejected.

Question 30

strength for ISI and counterpoint

Answer 30

research support from Lucas et al. When the questions got harder the situation became unclear. Ps did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.
COUNTERPOINT:
-unclear if it is NSI or ISI: E.g. asch’s study found conf. is reduced when there is a dissenting participant. This may reduce power of NSI- social support or ISI- another source of information. Therefore it is hard to separate the two that operate together in most real world situations

Question 31

NSI limit

Answer 31

does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others, with a strong need for affiliation. Researchers found people who were ‘nafilliarters’ were more likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. This means there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures

Question 32

The findings of Zimbardos experiment on social roles:

Answer 32

-guards took up their harsh role and within two days the prisoners rebelled, ripping their uniforms and shouting and swearing at the guards who used fire extinguishers.
-they reminded prisoners of their powerless role constantly. They showed differences between the two with headcounts and enforcing rules and punishments.
-prisoners became depressed and anxious after the rebellion. One was released due to signs of psychological disturbance. Two more were released on the forth day, one went on a hunger strike. Guards force fed him and punished him in the ‘hole’. Guards conformed more to their role after time and became more aggressive. Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of 14

Question 33

conclusion of zimbardos study- social roles

Answer 33

social roles appear to have a strong influence on someones behavior, guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive. Even volunteers who were assigned specific roles, such as prison chaplains, found they behaved in a prison rather than psychological study

Question 34

strengths of Zimbardos study

Answer 34

+colleagues had control over key variables, example sample of Ps. emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles. This is a way they ruled out individual personality differences. as an explanation of findings. If they behaved differently but were only in the roles by chance then it must be due to the role itself.
+COUNTERPOINT to lack of realism limit:
McDermott argues that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them, e.g. 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life. Talking about ‘sentences’ One prisoner later explained how he thought the prison was a real prison. This suggests SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving it a degree of high internal validity.

Question 35

Limits of Zimbardos study

Answer 35

-lack of realism: did not have realism of a true prison. Researchers argued that the participants were merely play acting rather than conforming to a role. Ps performances were based on stereotypes on how they are supposed to behave. Example- one guard said he based his character of the film Cool Hand Luke. This would also explain why the prisoners rioted. This suggests the SPE tell us little about conformity of social roles in real prisons
-exaggerates the power of roles: Zimbardo may have over exaggerated in his findings. Only 1/3 of the guards behaved in a brutal manner. Another third tried to apply them fairly. The rest tried to help and support the prisoners, offered cigarettes, reinstated privileges. Most guards were able to resist to the situational pressures. Suggests view was over stated and he minimized the influence of dispositional factors.

Question 36

what were the conclusions to Milgrams study?

Answer 36

That German people are not different, as Americans were willing to take orders even if it harmed others.

Question 37

Obedience- Milgrams limits

Answer 37

-may have not been testing what he intended to test/ Reported that 75% of the Ps thought the shocks were real. however others have argued they did not believe in it and were just play acting. Perrys research confirms this. Tapes revealed that only half though the shocks were real. 2/3 were disobedient. This means they have have been responding to demand characteristics and trying to meet the aims of the study.
-alternative interpretation: may not be justified- Haslam et al showed Milgrams Ps obeyed when the E delivered the first three verbal prods. However the forth prod made Ps disobey. according to social identity theory, Ps with the study only obeyed when they identifies the scientific aims of the research. When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure they refused. This shows SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of the findings.
-ethical issues on deception and consequences such as seizures

Question 38

Obedience- Milgrams strengths

Answer 38

+research support froma French documentary: made participants believe they were in a a game show. They were payed to give fake electric shocks to other participants in front of a live audience. 80% of the Ps delivered the maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man. Their behavior such as biting nails was identical to milgrams study. This supports his findings and denies it as results due to special circumstances
+COUNTERPOINT to low internal validity: Sheridan and King conducted a study using a procedure like Milgrams. ps gave real shocks to a puppy in response to an order. 54% of men and 100% of woman gave what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests that it was genuine as they behaved the same even when the shocks were real.

Question 39

situational explanations for obedience: proximity

Answer 39

Proximity- as the physical closeness of the Experimenter and Teacher was decreased, so did obedience (over phone, obedience dropped to 20.5%) on the baseline study, the T could hear the L but not see them. In the proximity variant they were in the same room. Obedience fell from 65% to 40%. In the touch proximity version when the T had to force the L to put their hand on the plate if they refused, it dropped by another 30%.
Explanation- procimity allows people to psychologically distance theirselves from their actions.

Question 40

Situational explanations for obedience: location

Answer 40

Location- Milgram conducted a variation of the study in a run down office block rather than yale university. obedience fell down to 47.5%
Explanation: the environment gave his original study legitimacy and authority. Although obedience was still high in the office block as they were aware of the scientific basis and importance of the study

Question 41

situational explanations for obedience: uniform

Answer 41

Uniform- in the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat. In a variation of the study, a experimenter was ‘called away’ and replaced with a ‘member of the public’ obedience dropped to 20%
Explanations: Uniforms encourage obedience and are recognized as a symbol of authority. We accept them as someone who is entitled to obedience, and they have less right to expect obedience from us

Question 42

strengths of situational variables: obedience

Answer 42

+research support: Field experiment in NYC- Bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, milkmans outfit, and security guard uniform. Passers by were asked to do tasks. People were much more likely to obey the security man. Supports situational variable such as uniform.
+cross cultural replications: Dutch Ps, ordered to say stressful things to an interviewer and 90% obeyed. Decrease with proximity variation, suggests his findings were not just limited to american men , but also across cultures and with woman

Question 43

Limits of situational variables: obedience

Answer 43

counterpoint to cross cultures: replications were not very cross cultural. only two replications in 30 years in India and Jordan. Other countries were culturally similar to the Us e.g. Spain. Therefore is may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgrams findings apply to people in most cultures
-Low internal validity: Ps may have been aware the procedure was fake. Orne and Holland made this criticism of the baseline study , pointing out that it is even more likely in his variations because of extra manipulation variables. Good example is the variation where E is replaced by a member of the public, could be obviously fake. So tricky to understand if it was just play acting (demand characteristics)

Question 44

whats an autonomous state?

Answer 44

opposite of being in an agentic state. to be independent and free in own principles. Shift from autonomy to agentic state is called the agentic shift, Milgram suggests this occurred when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. Authority figure is in a higher position in the social hierarchy.

Question 45

what are the binding factors of obedience?

Answer 45

Milgram observed people felt poweless when they wanted to stop. Binding factors is aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimize the damaging affect of their behavior and reduce the moral strain they are feeling.

Question 46

what is destructive authority?

Answer 46

when legitimate authority figures become destructive, like Hitler, using their powers for dangerous purposes. This was evident in Milgrams study

Question 47

evaluation of the agentic state

Answer 47

+ research support- Milgrams study showed when Experimenter responded ‘I am responsible’ they went through the procedure quicker with no objections. This means they no longer believed they were responsible for their own behavior, acting easily as the experimenters agent
-limited explanation- agentic shift does not explain many research findings, e.g. Rank and Jacobsons study found 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug overdose to a patient. Disobeying of an authority figure is also evident in Milgrams study, meaning agentic shift can only account for some situations.

Question 48

evaluation of legitimacy of authority

Answer 48

+explains cultural differences. Many replications of studies showed differences in culture. This shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. Reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
-cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. Like the nurses study. Milgrams disobeying participants, all recognized authority but still disobeyed. This suggests some people may be more or less disobedient than others. Possibility that it is innate tendencies that drive this

Question 49

strength of Authoritarian personality evaluation

Answer 49

+research support from Milgrams interview with people from pervious study who were fully obedient. They all did the F scale as part of the interview. 20 obedient Ps scored significantly higher on the F scale than a comparison group of 20 Ps. Clear difference.
This supports adorno et als view that obedient people may show similarities with the authoritarian personality

Question 50

Limits of Authoritarian personality evaluation - COUNTERPOINT OT RESEARCH SUPPORT:

Answer 50

analysis showed that the obedient people had unusual characteristics for the personality, such as not glorifying fathers, no punishment in childhood and did not have hostile attitudes towards mothers. This means the link is complex and it is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience

Question 51

Limits of Authoritarian personality evaluation - limited explanation

Answer 51

cannot explain obedient behavior in the majority of a countries population, e.g. pre war germany: many people were obedient and anti semitic but it was impossible for them all to have this personality. more links to social identity approach, therefore his theory is limited because an alternative explanation is much more realistic

Question 52

Limits of Authoritarian personality evaluation - political bias

Answer 52

only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology. researchers pointed out reality of left wing authoritarianism. Both sides are very similar as they highlight extreme obedience to political authority. This means his theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.

Question 53

resistance of social influence- social support evaluation

Answer 53

+research support- Albrecht et al evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA (8week programme to help pregnant adolescents ages 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke) social support was provided by an older person. At the end adolescents were much more likely to not smoke if they had a mentor than those who did not (control). This shows social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.
+research evidence in dissenting peers in resisting obedience. Gamson et als Ps were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. Found higher levels of resistance in study than Milgram did. This could be due to Ps being in groups. 29 out of 33 rebelled, showing peer support can lead to disobedience

Question 54

resistance of social influence- LOC evaluation

Answer 54

+research support: Holland repeated Milgrams baseline study and measured whether Ps were external or internal. He found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, but only 23% of externals. This shows resistance is at least partly related to LOC which increases its validity as an explanation
-evidence challenges it: Twenge et al analyzed data from LOC studies in America over 40 year period conduction, showed that people because more resistant to obedience over time but more external. This does not link to LOC explanation. Suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence

Question 55

explaining the process of change

Answer 55

Deeper processing which is important in process of conversion to a minority viewpoint. Snowball effects occurs the more quickly people are converted

Question 56

strengths of minority influence

Answer 56

+research evidence for consistency: Moscovici et als blue/ green slide study showed a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion. Wendy Wood et al- meta analysis: 100 similar studies found minorities who were consistent were found as most influential. Suggests consistency is a minimum requirement for influencing the majority
+research support for deeper processing: research shows change in majoritys position does involve deeper processing
.+Martin et al sent a message supporting a viewpoint and measured Ps agreement rates. One group of Ps heard minority group agree and one heard majority. then they were exposed to a conflicting view and their attitudes were measured again. People were less willing to change opinions if they had listened to majority rather than minority. This suggests minority message had been more deeply processes and had a more enduring effects, supporting the central argument about how minority influence works

Question 57

weaknesses of minority influences

Answer 57

• counter of deeper processing: Researches make a clear distinction between minority and majority, but RW situations are more complicated E.g. majorities have a lot more power and status than minorities. Minorities are committed because they often face hostility, this was not included in minority influence research. Therefore his findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in RW situations
  -artificial tasks: slide colour identifier. Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behavior of majorities in real life. In cases such as jury decision making and political campaigning outcomes are vastly more important. This means findings of minority influence studies are lacking in external validity and are limited in RW application

Question 58

social change: lessons from conformity research

Answer 58

environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI, by providing information about what other people are doing. E.g. reducing litter by printing normative messages on litter bins (other do). Social change is brought about by letting others know what the majority do

Question 59

social change: lessons from obedience

Answer 59

Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment. One small instruction is obeyed, makes it become much more difficult to resist a bigger one.

Question 60

social influence and social change strengths

Answer 60

+research support for normative influences:
reduce in energy habits aim by putting two different sign posts on two different groups doors saying either save energy because others are or just save energy. results showed that the first group reduced energy more than the second. This shows conformity can lead to social change through NSI, valid explanation.
+psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change. Nemeth claims social change is due to type of thinking minorities inspire. Divergent thinking- broader thinking. He argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues. Shows why dissenting minories are valuable- stimulate new ideas and open mind in the way majorities cannot

Question 61

social influence and social change limits

Answer 61

-counter to energy reduction research: challenging study- Foxcroft reviewed 70 studies where social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use. Researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quality and none in drinking frequency. Therefore it seems that using NI does not always produce long form social change
-Deeper processing may not have a role in minority social change: Mackie presents evidence that majority influence may create deeper processing if you do not share their views- when we find a majority believes something different than us we are forced to think hard about their reasons for arguing. Means central element of minortiy influence has been challenged casting doubt on its validity as an explanation