social influence Flashcards
1
Q
conformity
A
a change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or person.
2
Q
types of conformity
A
- compliance
- internalisation
- identification
3
Q
compliance
A
Superficial agreement with the group – going along with it publicly but holding a different view privately.
4
Q
identification
A
Conforming to the group because we value it – prepared to change views to be part of it.
5
Q
internalisation
A
Conforming to the group because you accept its norms – you agree privately as well as publicly
6
Q
normative social influence
A
we agree with the opinions of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval to be liked.
7
Q
informational social influence
A
we agree with the opinions of the majority because we believe it is correct
8
Q
asch
A
aim - whether group pressures results in conformity
procedure - to compare a target line to a comparison line surrounded by confederates
findings - 75% of ppts conformed at least once
conc - conformity occurs
9
Q
eval of asch
A
- child of its time
- artificial situation and task
- limited application of findings
10
Q
zimbardo
A
-Procedure ‘Emotionally stable’ students played roles of prisoners and guards in prison simulation scheduled to last two weeks.
-Guards and prisoners had their own uniforms to emphasise their social roles.
Finding Guards treated prisoners harshly especially after suppressing an attempted rebellion.
-Prisoners became more depressed until the study was stopped after six days.
-Conclusion Guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the mock prison.
Study demonstrated the power of the situation to influence behaviour.
11
Q
eval of zimbardo
A
+ control over variables - increasing internal validity
- lack of realism
- role of dispositional factors
12
Q
milgram
A
- Procedure ‘Teacher’ gave fake electric shocks to ‘learner’ during a ‘learning task’, ordered to do so by an experimenter.
At 315v learner pounded on the wall for the last time.
Prods, e.g. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’. - Findings No participants stopped before 300v and 65% went all the way to the top of the shock scale, 450v.
Many showed signs of stress, most objected but continued anyway.
Prior survey said 3% would obey.
13
Q
milgram: supprt from other research
- Holfling 1966
A
- a field experiment into obedience
- to investigate how many nurses would break hospital regulations when asked by a doctor
- nurses were given orders over the phone to administer double the dosage of a drug to a patient
— 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed
14
Q
milgram: support from other research
- sheridan and king 1972
A
- conducted experiment to train a puppy by giving it real electric shocks. participants could see the puppy and hear it squeal
- findings: despite real shocks being given, 54% of males and 100% of females delivered the electric shocks as instructed
– this supports milgram’s results as people behaved the same with real shocks
15
Q
negative evaluations of milgram
A
- lacked mundane realism: setting was artifiial and controlled
- findings have low ecological validity as they lack generalisability to real life settings
- ethical issues
- sample wasn’t representative; ethnocentric
16
Q
negative evaluations of milgram
A
- lacked mundane realism: setting was artifiial and controlled
- findings have low ecological validity as they lack generalisability to real life settings
- ethical issues
- sample wasn’t representative; ethnocentric
17
Q
agentic shift
A
we switch from being autonomous to being an agent, because we perceive someone else to be an authority figure entitled to expect obedience
18
Q
proximity
A
a situational variable affecting obedience and refers to how close you are to someone or something.
19
Q
uniform
A
situational variable affecting obedience. This is because authority figures often wear clothes that symbolise their position of authority.
20
Q
location
A
Changing the location to somewhere with less status and prestige reduced obedience.
21
Q
agentic state
A
failing to take personal responsibility because we believe we are acting on behalf on an authority figure
22
Q
autonomous state
A
free from other influence, we take responsibility for our actions
23
Q
research support of situational factors: bickman
A
- bickman: tested ecological validity of milgram’s work by conducting an experiment in a more realistic setting
- in this study, three male researchers gave direct requests to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in Brooklyn
— researchers were dressed in one of three ways: guards uniform, milkmans uniform, civilian clothing
24
Q
bickman findings
A
- bickman observed that 80% of ppts obeyed the researcher who was dressed to look like a police officer, whereas 40% of those approached by the researcher wearing civillian clothing or the milkman’s uniform obeyed the request
— provides further evidence that obedience is influenced by the amount of authority a person is perceived to have
25
agentic shift
people moving from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure. this shift from autonomy to 'agency' is called the agentic shift
26
legitimacy of authority
an explanation for obedience that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us e.g parents, teachers, nightclub bouncers etc
- this authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy and is agreed upon by society
27
legitimacy of the system
concerns the extent to which the 'body' is a legitimate source of authority
28
legitimacy of authority within the system
- this is power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in the system
- therefore is linked to status and the hierarchy within a particular establishment
29
legitimacy of demands or orders given
refers to the extent with which the order is perceived to be a legitimate area for the authority figure
30
what massacre shows the agentic shift
my lai massacre
31
research support for agentic shift: blass and schmitt
- blass and schmit found that poeple who watched a film of milgram's study blamed the experimenter, indicating that they believed the ppts were agents of authority
- strength because explanation is reinforced by others' views. also supported by many historical events which demonstrate that as a result of social pressure normal people can act in a callous and inhumane way
32
evaluations of legitimacy theory: a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
- only 15% of australians went to 450V whereas 85% of german ppts did
- reflects the ways that different societies are structured and are raised to perceive authority figures
- strength because supportive findings from cross-cultural research increases validity of explanation
33
limitations of the agentic state
not all behaviours of the nazis can be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift
34
adorno procedure
-investigated the causes of an obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 MC, white american and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups ---- they developed an 'F scale
to measure the r'ship between a person's personality type and prejudiced beliefs
35
adorno findings
- those who has scored highly on the Fscale identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'
- were very conscious of their own and others' status
36
the particular cognitive style participants had (adorno)
- there were no 'grey areas' between categories of people
- they had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
- there was strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
37
authoritarian personality
a distinct personality pattern characterised by strict asherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
38
characteristics of an authoritarian personality
- rigid beliefs in conventional values
- general hostility towards other groups
- intolerant of ambiguity-anything that cannot be defined in a clear cut way
- submissive attitudes towards authority figures
39
evaluations of disposition factors: limited explanation
any explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality will find it hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country's population
-- in pre-war germany, millions of individuals all displayed obedient, racist and anti-semitic behvaiour, they cannot all have had the same personality
40
research support for adorno
milgram and elms
- they found that those who were fully obedient and went all the way to 450V scored higher on tests of authoritarianism
41
evaluations of dispositional factors: political bias
(Fscale measures the tendency towards an extreme right-wing ideology)
- adorno's theory is limited as it cannot account for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum
- adorno's own left-wing bias' may have influenced his research
42
methodological evaluations of the F-scale
-sample: all male and research was done in america, so results can't be generalised to wider pop.
- not all prejudiced people had a harsh upbringing and vice versa
- acquiescence bias - statements all in one direction
-correlation does not = causation
43
resistance to social influence
refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority
44
social support
the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same.
these people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible
45
social support a01
---conformity, asch: found that conformity reduced to 5.5% when one of the confederates gave a different answer to the rest of the group-this was true even when the confederates answer was a different wrong answer: social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority
---obedience, milgram: obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine pps was joined by a disobedient confederate, independent behaviour increased from 35% to 90% in the disobedient peer condition --- people are more confident to resit obedience if they can find an ally who is willing to join them
46
social support, research support: Allen and Levine
- allen and levine: found independence increased with one dissenter in an asch-type study. even if he wore thick glasses and said he had problems with his vision
- strength because it shows resistance is not motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group, demonstrating how social support can increase resistance to social influence
47
social support, research support: Gamson et al
- gamsom: found higher levels of resistance in their study than milgram which was probably because they were in groups
- they had to produce evidence to help an oil company run a 'smear campaign'
- 29/33 groups of pps rebelled (88%)
- a strength because it shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance
48
locus of control
this refers to the sense we have about what directs events in our lives
49
rotter: internal locus of control
internals believe that they are mostly responsible for what happens to them
50
rotter: external locus of control
externals believe that things happen without their own control
51
what type of LOC is more likely to be able to resist pressure to conform or obey
internal loc
52
locus of control A03: Holland
holland: repeated milgram's study and measured whether pps were internals or externals
- 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (they showed independence)
- only 23% of externals did not continue
--- a strength as internals showed greater resistance, this support increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance
53
locus of control A03: role may be exaggerated
- rotter: found LOC is only important in new situations - it has little influence in familiar situations where previous experiences are always more important
- does suggest that LOC can explain only a limited range of situations in which people might resist social influence
- means LOC is not as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested
54
locus of control A03: contradictory evidence
- twenge: analysed data from american obedience studies over a 40 year period
- data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but more external
- is resistance were linked to an internal LOC then we would expect people to have become more internal
--- weakness as it challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance (however the results may be due to a changing society where many things are increasingly outside personal control)
55
minority influence
involves an individual or minority persuading other members to accept their argument, even if this challenges their view held by the majority
56
what does minority influence involve
- consistency, commitment, flexibility
57
moscovici
- first studied minority influence with his 'blue slide, green slide' study
- concluded that minorities can influence majorities
58
factors affecting minority influence: consistency
consistency makes others rethink their own views
59
synchronic consistency
people in the minority are all saying the same thing
60
diachronic consistency
they have been saying the same thing for a long time
61
factors affecting minority influence: commitment
extreme activities are at some risk to the minority which demonstrates commitment to the cause. also referred to as the augmentation principle
62
factors affecting minority influence: flexibility
- if the minority is seen as being unflexible and uncompromising then the majority are unlikely to change
- the minority should balance consistency and commitment with flexibility so they do not appear too rigid
63
nemeth
- constructed a mock jury which supports flexibility
64
the process of change
- all three factors make people think about the topic
- over time, people become 'converted' and switch from the minority to the majority- the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion (the snowball effect)
- gradually the minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred
65
evaluations of minority influence: research support for consistency
- moscovici demonstrated that when the minority are consistent in their responses they had a greater influence on the majority than when they were inconsistent
--- approx 6x more influential
- wood et al: conducted a meta analysis of 100 studies of minority influence and found consistent minorities were always more influential
66
evaluations of minority influence: artificial tasks
tasks such as moscovici's blue slide task lack mundane realism i.e they aren't like real-life events where minority influence may occur e.g political protests
67
evaluations of minority influence (moscovici) : population validity
moscovici's sample was all female, therefore not representative of the wider population
68
evaluations of minority influence: the full effect of minority influence may not be apparent
-people may be reluctant to admit their 'conversion' publicly. moscovici found higher agreement with the minority when pps wrote down their responses. shows that internalisation took place
- pps in lab studies are less likely to share common goals/opinions. irl, minority groups will often have strong social identities - which may increase their chances of exerting influence
69
evaluations of minority influence: research support for depth of thought
- martin et al: gave pps a message supporting a particular viewpoint on voluntary euthanasia and measure their support
- one group of pps then heard a minority group endorsing the same view.
- another group of pps heard a majority group endorsing the initial viewpoint. pps were then exposed to a conflicting view and their support was measured again
- ppl were more likely to stick to their original opinion if they believed it was shared by a minority group than if they believed it was shared by a majority group--- suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect
70
the role of social influence processes in social change
- occurs when societies as a whole adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. process occurs continually but at a gradual pace, with minority influence being the main driving force for social change
71
special role of minority influence/conversion
minority influence is likely to lead to deeper processing. - as majority are forced to consider the unusualness of the minority position
- deeper processing can lead to a change in one's own views - conversion
72
6 steps in how minority influence creates social change
1. drawing attention to the issue
2. consistency of position
3. deeper processing
4. the augmentation principle
5. the snowball effect
6. social cryptomnesia
73
social cryptomnesia
people have a memory that change occurred but some people have no memory of the events leading to that change
74
cialdini
tested the effect of social proof on behaviour. hotel guests were shown one of two different messages about reusing towels
- message one achieved 38% positive behaviour
- message two (using social proof) achieved 48% positive behaviour
75
disobedient models make social change more likely
- in a variation of milgram's research where one confederate refused to give shocks, the rate of obedience in genuine pps dropped significantly - from 65% to 10%
76
gradual commitment
social change, positive or negative, will be more likely if it happens bit by bit, rather than all at once
77
examples of gradual commitment
- milgram: pps didn't give the 450V shock straight away, they gradually increased 15V at a time
- nazi germany: death camps were not introduced in 1933, only after a gradual increase in anti-semitic laws and propaganda
78
research support for the role of NSI in social change: nolan
- investigated whether majority influence led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community
- findings showed significant decrease in energy usage in the group that were informed 'most residents' were trying to reduce energy usage
- strength because it shows how conforming to a majority group can lead to social change through NSI
79
strength of the process of social influence causing social change is that the research is based in laboratory settings
e.g moscovici carried out his studies in lab conditions with a high level of control over variables, he was able to randomly allocate pps to one of the 3 conditions, he tested them for colour blindness and he showed each pp the same slides to see if they conformed
- strength because it allows researchers to infer cause and effect. they can conclude that the IV caused the DV because they have controlled all extraneous variables - therefore provides reliable support for the process of social influence leading to social change
80
a weakness is the methodological issues of the research into social influence and social change
- explanations based on social influence research are limited in what they can tell us as the research is based in lab settings
- e.g the artificial and trivial tasks used in some studies, and whether group dynamics reflect those in real life
= a weakness because they don't reflect real-life situations of social influence so there are problems with generalising the findings from this research to how social change occurs in everyday life
81
evaluation of social influence in social change: the nature of 'deeper processing' has been questioned
- moscivici suggested that minority influence causes individuals to think deeply which is a different cognitive process from majority influence
- other psychologists disagree arguing that actually majority influence creates deeper processing if you don't share their views. we believe that others think like us and if we find out the majority thinks differently to us, we are forced to think hard about their arguments
= a weakness because the central element of minority social influence is challenged and may be incorrect, casting doubt on the validity of moscovici's theory
