Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

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

Conformity

A

A change in behav/opinions as result of real or imagined pressure form person or group of people

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

Compliance

A

Person changes public behav due to request/influence of another person but not private beliefs
- lowest level of conformity
- short term
- result of normative social influence
(E.g laughing at a joke you don’t find funny)

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

Identification

A

Person changes public behaviour + private beliefs in the presence of the group they identify with
- temporary
- intermediate level of conformity
- result of normative social influence
(E.g supporting a football team)

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

Internalisation

A

Person changes both public behaviour + private beliefs
- Deepest level of conformity
- long-term
- result of informational social influence
(E.g religion/politics)

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

Asch’s Researxh

A 
Aim = assess how much people would conform to the opinion of others even in a situation where the answer is certain 
Procedure = (visual perception task) 123 male American undergraduates. Showed two cards - One card with three comparison lines and other with one standard line. Asked which of the three lines match the standard. Participant placed second last or last. 6-8 confederates in each group. All Confederates gave wrong answer to 12/18 critical trials
Results = participants give wrong answer 36.8% of time. Overall 25% participants didn’t conform on any trial. 75% conformed at least once
Conclusion = participants conform even when situation is unambiguous (asch effect - participants conformed to avoid social rejection, NSL)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Asch’s Variation

A

Group size - The number of members within a social group (added more confederates = made little difference to conformity)
Unanimity - The degree to which the group members are in agreement with each other( introduce a new confederate who disagreed with others, gave right/wrong answer) conformity reduced by 1/4 as it enabled participants to behave more independently
Task difficulty- how obvious answer is (Made stimulus line + comparison lines more similar in length, conformity increased - informational social influence played greater role went as became harder)

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

Asch’s Research (ethical issues)

A

P - ethical issues in experiment
E - participants deceived, believed confederate a participant in visual perception task
C - needed deception to test conformity to an obvious answer
E - if knew confederates purposely gave wrong answer, would give different answers = findings invalid

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

Asch’s Research (artificial)

A

P - experiment is artificial
E - task of identifying which 1/3 matched standard line is trivial
E - lacked mundane realism (doesn’t replicate every day tasks)
C - shows conformity to obviously incorrect answers to fit in group, important about human behav

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

Asch’s Research ( internal validity)

A

P - High degree of control
E - e.g task difficulty variation = everything but length of line to remained same
E - able to see clearly how different variations affected conformity levels
I - Increase IV, decrease EV, study controlled = doesn’t replicate every day life

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

Informational social influence

A
  • Need to be right
  • cognitive
  • internalisation
  • occur in new situation to a person, crisis situations where rapid decisions need to be made, 1 person regarded as expert
    E.g most class agrees 1 ans + u accept ans as u believe they most likely right
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Normative social influence

A
  • need to be liked ( norms regulate behav of group/indiv = why we pay attention)
  • emotional
  • compliance
  • occur in situations with stranger where feel concerned about rejection, concerned of social approval of friends, stressful situations = greater need for social support
    (E.g in interview, everyone has CV out so u do )
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conformity Explanations ( w - 2 process approach)

A

P - Deutsch + gerrard 2 process approach = behav due to NSI + ISI or both involved
E - e.g conformity reduced when one other dissenting participant present in Asch’s study. Dissenter reduce power of NSI (provide social support) or power of ISI (alternative source of info)
E - not possible to be sure if ISI or NSI
I - serious doubt of view of NSI + ISI as 2 professes operating independent of conforming behav

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Conformity Explanation (s - supporting research)

A

P - research supporting ISI from Lucas (2006)
E - asked students give ans to math prob that were easy/difficult. Found greater conf to incorrect ans when difficult than easy
E - show people conform in situation where they don’t know ans
I - evidence of ISI, look to others when we want to be right in difficult situation

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

Conformity Explanations ( w - indiv diff)

A

P - despite evidence, indiv diff present in process
I - research shwo NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behav in same way, people less concerned about being liked less affected by NSI than those who docare
E - desire to be liked underlies conformity for some than others
I - weakens NSI, doesn’t explain everyone’s behaviour same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Conformity explanation ( s - support from experiment)

A

P - research support comes from Asch’s experiment
E - participant knew group wrong privately, but chose to conform to be accepted in,
interview admitted conformed to avoid social rejection
E - show power of social approval and need to be liked valued as more than own intelligence and logic in unambiguous situation
I - valid theory why people conform, states we conform to be part of social group not because they believe group is right

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

Milligram’s Experiment

A

Aim - to understand if Germans were different + more obedient to figures of authority than people in other countries
Procedure - 40 male participants through newspapers, confederate was learner ( strapped to chair in a separate room, wired with electrodes) + participant was teacher,
Teacher administered learner increasingly severe electric shocks each time learner answered incorrectly to learning task ( prerecorded shocks), shock level between 15V - 450V, experimenter forced teacher to continue if wanted to stop due to screams ( sequence of 4 prods)
Findings - all participants went up to 300V, 65% anet to 450V, participants showed signs of tension + distress (sweating), three participants had full-blown uncontrollable seizures, results varied predictions (14 students predicted 3% would go to 450V)
Conclusions - under right cirum, ordinary people would obey unjust orders, germans arem’t different as same would occur in different country

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

Social influence

A

The process by which indiv/groups change each other’s attitude + behav

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

Obedience

A

When an indiv follows direct order from person who usually figure of authority - power to punish when obedient behav doesn’t occur

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

Destructive obedience

A

When indiv obeys order to do something in immoral, causes individual carrying out order distress + regret

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

Milgram’s experiment (ethical issues)

A

P - deceive participants, told experiment on punishment + learning
E - actually measuring obedient + pretended learner received electric shocks
E - deception committed, took advantage of uninformed content to produce valid and authentic data. reduced demand characteristics
I - Damaged reputation of Milgram + experiment, lack of morality

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

Milgram’s experiment ( ecological validity)

A

P - criticised for lack of ecological validity
E - tested in lab, different to real life situations where people usually asked to follow subtle instructions instead of administering electric shocks
E - can’t apply to every day situations, too controlled + artificial
I - cost to complete research does outweigh benefits of doing the experiment as its artificial = meaningless 

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

Milgram’s experiment ( supporting evidence)

A

P - evidence from Sheridan + King
E - conduct a similar experiment by include puppies, shocks real (54% male + 100% female deliver fatal shocks)
E - findings were genuine as people behaved same with real shocks
I - increase trust + validity of Milgram study, shows people will follow injust orders from figures of authority

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

Zimbardo’s experiment

A

Aim - investigate how readily people conform to social roles of guard + prisoner and role-playing exercise stimulating prison life. Examine behaviour displayed in prison due to internal dispositional (themselves, external situational factors)
Procedure - convert basement of Stanford Uni to mock prison, advertised 24 males, parti randomly asigned role of prisoner/guard in stimulated prison envir. prisoners blindfolded, strip searched, de louse, issued uniform, referred by number. Guards issued khaki uniform, whistles, handcuffs, dark glasses, 8 hr shifts + no physical violence, Z observed behav of guards + prisoners while acting as prison ward
Findings - prisoner rebellion (ripped uniform, shouted + swore at guards, both settled in roles, prisoners Harassed prisoner in brutal + sadistic manner (enjoying it), prisoner adopted prisoner like behav ( talk about prison issues, told tales of each other to guards, taking prison rules seriously, siding with guards against prisoners), prisoner more submissive = guards meow aggressive + assertive, demanded greater obdeiance + prisoner dependent for everything so tried please, guard became threat to prisoner psychological + physical health = study stopped 6 instead of 14 days
Conclusion- people quickly confirm to social role ( despite going against moral principles), situational factors largely responsible for behav, none behav found previously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Zimbardo’s experiment ( realism - b +m )

A

P - lack of realism
E - banuzazi + mohevedi, guards may acted that genuinely conforming to role
E - performance based on stereotypes of prisoner + guard behav ( guards act brutally + prisoner start riot), behav observed may not be due to situation but assumptions and how they should behave
I - Decrease validity as findings may not be accurate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Zimbardo’s experiment (variable control)

A

P - Zimbardo + colleagues had control over variables
E - Selection of participants = emotionally stable individuals chose randomly assigned to roles of guards and prisoners
E - rule out individual personality difference as explanation
I - strict control= increase validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Zimbardo’s experiment ( ethical issues)

A

P - Ethical issues present
E - One occasion participant one wanted to leave experiment spoke to Z in role as prison warden
E - Z responding as prison warden worried about running prison instead of researcher with responsibility to participants
I - participants stayed longer than wanted = psychological and physical harm, prevent right to withdraw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Situational variables

A

Features of an environment that impact the degree of obedience of an indiv

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Proximity

A

Physical closeness/distance of authority figure to person they giving order or physical closeness of person carrying out order to victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Location

A

Place order issued - status of prestige of place can impact obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Uniform

A

Clothes an authority figure wears symbolise position of authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Milligram (proximity findings)

A
  • teacher + learner in adjoining rooms (65%)
  • teacher + learner in same room (drop to 40%)
  • force hand onto electroshock plate (30%)
  • orders over phone in different rooms (20.5%)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Milligram (proximity conclusion)

A

Reduces obedience - participants pretended to give shocks or give weaker ones and, closer teachers to their actions, more decrease the rate of obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Milgram (Location findings)

A
  • original : prestigious uni setting

- variation : run down building (47.5%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Milgram (location conclusion)

A

Decrease rate of obedience- more formal location causes likelihood of obedience to increase

35
Q

Milgram (uniform findings)

A
  • original : grey lab coat
  • variation : everyday clothes (ordinary member of public instead of experimenter)
  • dropped to 20%
36
Q

Milgram uniform ( conclusions )

A

Decreases obedience - wearing uniform increases rate of obedience ( lowest variation=biggest impact)

37
Q

Milgram’s variations evaluation (lacks IV)

A

P - lacks IV as demand characteristics
E - Orne + Holland argue parti wold have worked out procedure was fake as 1 condition had experimenter replaced by member of public.
E - invalid results as people didn’t act ‘naturally’, change behav for please/screw u so M couldn’t measure effect of situational variables on obedience
I - weakens study + evidence supporting this obedience explanation

38
Q

Milgram’s variations evaluation (alibi/excuses )

A

P - variables obedience explanation can be criticised for providing excuse/alibi for eveil behav
E - mandel (1998) s it’s offensive to holocaust survivors to s Nazis were simply obeying orders + victims themselves of situati variables beyond their control
E - although variables impact obediance not sensitive and can be viewed negatively
I - limits reliability as explanation for all obediant behav

39
Q

Milgram’s variations evaluation (systematically altered)

A

P - when researching each variable, M systematically altered 1 variable at time to impact on obedience level
E - only changed PUL, didn’t change all 3 in 1 go
E - sure way variable has impact on obedience, showing not impacted by extraneous variables
I - explanation more validity

40
Q

Legitimacy of authority

A
  • S people more likely to obey people who they perceive have authority over them. Authority justified from indivs positions power within social hierarchy. Taught to recognise value of obedience to authority from young age as keeps stability in society if authority exercised properly.
  • authority figure seems legitimate, indiv granted power to punish others. People willing to give up some independence + hand control of behav to people they trust to exercise authority appropriately
  • problem : legitimate authority is destructive ( shown in M’s study, experimenter used prods to order participants in ways that went against their consciences)
41
Q

Legitimacy of Authority evaluation ( kelman + Hamilton)

A

P - L of A explain how obedience lead to real life war crimes
E - Kelman + Hamilton argue My LainMassacre ( 500 unarmed Vietnam civilians killed by American soldiers), can be understood by power hierarchy in US Army
E - explanation has practical application
I - if L of A useful explanation of real life war crimes, possibility could help understand how to prevent such future crimes by challenging L of A than obeying mindlessly.soldiers argues higher than them were legitimate authority that followed orders

42
Q

Legitimacy of Authority evaluation (location change)

A

P - supporting evidence for L of A explanation
E - M’s original research at Yale Uni, % of parti administrating full 450V was high (62.5). but when experiment in run down building in Bridgeport, Connecticut obedience levels dropped significantly (48)
E - means parti less likely to obey, providing support for explanation of obedience
I - change in location reduced L of A as parti less likely to trust experiment

43
Q

Legitimacy of Authority evaluation (Tarnow)

A

P - Tarnow provided support for power of L of A thro aviation accident study
E - studing data from all seriou aircraft accidents in US between 1978 + 1990 where flight voice recorder + flight crew actions were contributing factor in crash. Found excessive dependence on captain’s authority + expertise. 1 office claimed, although captain take particularly risky approach, he assumed ‘captain must know was he is doing’
E - therefore provides support for Lo of A as obedience explanation
I - shows power L of A can have over indiv in real world

44
Q

Authoritarian Personality

Procedure + Findings

A 
Adorno et al (1950) investigated causes of obedient behav in study of more than 2000 middle class white Americans + their unconscious attitudes to other racial groups. Primarily used F sale ( f for fascist)
- Findings : high score on F scale identified as ‘strong’ people + generally disrespectful and had hatred for weak. Very conscious of own + others status  + shows excessive respect, submission and were slave like to those of higher status. Authoritarian people had no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people, distinctive stereotypes + saw things black and white, no grey areas
45
Q

Authoritarian Personality Characteristics

A
  • tendency to be especially obedient at to authority
  • extreme respect for authority + a submissive to it
  • hatred for people they perceive have inferior social status
  • traditional attitudes to sex, race + gender
  • view society as going downhill + therefore think need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values
  • outlook inflexible + uncomfortable with uncertainty
46
Q

Authoritarian Personality Orgins

A
  • extremely strict discipline
  • expectation of complete loyalty
  • impossibly high standards
  • severe criticism of perceived failures
  • conditional love
    Creates resentment + hostility in child. Fear and anger displaced to Weaker people. Explains a central trait of obedience to higher authority + hatred for socially inferior or of other social groups
47
Q

Authoritarian Personality Evaluation (correlation)

A

P - link between authoritarian personalities + harsh personality is correlation
E - no way to establish cause and effect as experiments in this area can’t be carried out due to ethical reasons
E - don’t know true reason for an authoritarian personality
I - limits validity of explanation

48
Q

Authoritarian Personality Evaluation (research support)

A

P - Milgram + elms conducted interviews with some of indiv for M’s orginal study
E - those parti with high obedience level were significantly more authoritarian on F scale than disobedience parti
E - suggest there’s a link between personality + obedience
I - shows support for authoritarian personality and a valid explanation for obedience

49
Q

Authoritarian Personality Evaluation (individual personality )

A

P - individual personality explanations of obedience can’t easily explain behav of country’s majority
E - not likely all Germans, who were obedient, racist + anti semitic, has an authoritarian personality.
E - limitation of Adornos theory because it’s clear an alternative explanation is much more realistic like social identity theory. Majority of Germans identified with anti-Semitic Nazi state + scapegoated the ‘out group’ of Jews
I - limits applicability of theory

50
Q

Autonomous state

A

An indiv feels responsible for own actions and indiv behaves according to own actions. An indiv will go through agentic shift where change from autonomous to agentic state

51
Q

Agentic state

A
  • Mental state where an indiv feels no personal responsibility over their behav as believe themselves acting for an authority figure. Indiv acting as an agent, they aren’t ‘unfeeling puppet’. Experience high anxiety - moral strain. Know what they doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey authority figure
  • M argued aspects of situations allow agent to ignore or minimise damaging effects of their behav and therefore reduce moral strain - binding factors including shifting responsibility of victim or denying damage done to victim
52
Q

Agentic shift in Milgram’s research

A
  • 65% parti administrated full 450V and arguably in agentic state as parti told experimenter had full responsibility
  • 1 variation, additional confederate administrated electric shocks on behalf teacher. Parti administrating full 450V rose to 92.5
  • highlights power of shifting responsibilities, parti shift responsibility onto person administrating electric shocks + continue obeying orders as feel less responsible. Ability to enter agentic state increase obedience level as person responsibility decreases
53
Q

Agentic shift evaluation (holfings)

A

P - agentic shift doesn’t explain research findings
E - doesn’t explain from Hoflings study. Agentic state explanations predicts that as nurses handed over responsibility to doctor, they should have shown anxiety levels similar to M’s parti as they understood what they doing was wrong.
E - nurses didn’t show moral strain
I - AS only accounts for some situations of obedience

54
Q

Agentic shift evaluation (blass + Schmitt)

A

P - blass + Schmitt showed film of M’s study to student and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for harm to leaner
E - Students blamed experimenter rather than parti
E - if student delay resonsibility was on experimenter as authority figure, it’s easy to see how teacher would have given up their responsibility and entered agentic state, leading them to continue to giving electric shocks
I - s AS is a valid explanation of obedience

55
Q

Agentic shift evaluation (not controlled by indiv)

A

P - AS s behav isn’t controlled by indiv
E - s free will can be given up.
E - deterministic as it means behav is controlled by something else (=power an authority figure holds)
I - doesn’t fit with judiciary system, s we have control over our action + should be held responsible for consequences of them

56
Q

Resistance to social support

A

Refers to ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to majority or to obey authority. Ability to withstand to social pressure is influenced by situational factor (social support) + dispositional factors (locus of control)

57
Q

Locus of control

A

Explain resistance to social influence. Degree of control an indiv feels they have over their own life + measured on a continuum from internal to external

58
Q

Internal vs External (LoC)

A
  • internals believe things happen to them are allegedly controlled by themselves. Whilst externals believe things happen outside their control.
  • internals more likely to resist social influence as they take personal responsibility for their actions + base their decisions on their own beliefs. More self confident, more achievement orientated, have higher intelligence + have less need for social approval, leading to greater resistance
59
Q

Locus of Control Evaluation (supporting research)

A

P - evidence to support links between LoC + resisting obedience
E - Holland (1967) repeated M’s baseline study + measured whether parti were internals/externals. Found 37% internals don’t continue to highest level of shock (some resistance) while 23% of externals don’t continue
E - internals evidently showed greater resistance to authority + externals less likely to resist social influence
I - research support of this nature increases validity of LoC + explanations to resistance

60
Q

Locus of Control Evaluation (exaggerated - rotter)

A

P - role of LoC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated.
E - rotter (1982) found LoC only comes to play in novel situations. Very little influence over our behav in familiar situations where previous experience will be more important
E - limitation as it means LoC only helpful in explaining a narrow range of new situations
I - means even if people have internal LoC but confirmed or obeyed in a specific situations in past, likely to do so again

61
Q

Locus of Control Evaluation (contradictory research)

A

P - contradictory evidence for role of LoC and resistance to social influence
E - twenge (2004) analysed data from American LoC studies of 40 studies (1960-2002). Knew American public become more independent over this time. But data shows that over time span, people have become more resistance to obedience, but more external. If resistance were linked to an internal LoC, we would expect people to have become more internal.
C - although this challenges link between internal LoC + increasing resistance behav, it’s possible that other factors could have influenced results
E - possible that change in society causes theses results where many things are out of personal control + therefore they r more external in their LoC

62
Q

Minority influence

A

Refers to situations where 1 person/smalll group influence beliefs, attitudes and behav of others. Different from conformity where majority is doing the influencing. Most likely to lead to internalisation both public + private beliefs r changed.

63
Q

Minority influence research

A

Moscovici studied process of minority influence in his ‘blue/green slide’ study. 6 people asked to view set of 36 differing blue slides + state whether blue or green. Each group, 2 confederates consistently said slides were green in 2/3 of trials. Parti gave same wrong answer on 8.42%. 2nd group exposed to inconsistent minority + agreement fell to 1.25%. 3rd control group, no control confederates. Parti identify colour of each slide. Got wrong on 0.25% of trials. Study drew attention to main processes of minority influence

64
Q

MI - consistency

A

Minority’s view increases amount of interest from others. Might be agreement between people. Synchronic consistency - all saying the same thing. Might be over time. Diachronic consistency - saying same thing for some time now. Such consistency makes others people to start rethink their own views.
MI most effective if minority keeps same beliefs, both over time and between all indiv that form minority. It’s effective as it draws attention to minority view.

65
Q

MI commitment

A

Minorities engage in extreme activities sometimes to draw attention to their views. It’s important these activities r at some risk to minority as demonstrates commitment. MI more powerful of personal sacrifices made. Effective as it shows minority isn’t acting of self impact

66
Q

MI flexibility

A

Nemeth (1986) argues consistency can be interpreted negatively. Repeating same argument + behav seen as rigid, unbending, opinionated and inflexible. Is off putting to majority + unlikely to result in any conversion to minority position (counter productive)
Instead minority members need prepare to adapt their point of view + accept reasonable and valid counter arguments . Key to strike a balance between consistency + flexibility. MI more effective if minority show flexibility by accepting possibility of compromise

67
Q

Process to change

A

3 factors outlined make people think about a topic. Deeper processing (source of view is passionate + consistent) is important in conversion process to a different, minority viewpoint. Over time, increasing numbers of people from majority position to minority position . Become ‘converted’. More it happens, faster rate of conversion (snowball effect). Gradually minority view becomes majority view + change occured

68
Q

Minority Influence Evaluation (artificial tasks)

A

P - limitation of MI research has artificial tasks involved in studies
E - e.g parti asked to dientify colour of a slide in Moscivicis study
E - due to artificiality of tasks, research consequently too far removed from how minorities attempt to change behav of majorities in real life
I - findings of MI such as Moscivici is lacking one external validity + limited in what they can tell about how MI works in real life situation

69
Q

Minority Influence Evaluation (internalization support)

A

P - moscivi’s variation support internalisation idea impacting MI
E - moscivis variations of blue/green slide study, parti allowed to write answers down, so answers private rather than stated out loud. Surprisingly private’s agreement with MI is greater in these circumstances
E - appears members of majority being convinced by minority’s argument and changing own views but reluctant to admit publicly
I - compliments ideas that reluctancy to be associated with MI is due to fear of being radical, awkward, weird

70
Q

Minority Influence Evaluation (too simple application)

A

P - research studies make very clear + obvious distinctions between majority + minority
E - e.g in Moscovic’s study, groups of 6 and majority was 4 people and minority was 2
C - However, real life situation r much more complicated than this. More involved in difference between a majority and minority than just numbers
E - changing views is much complicated in real life and research doesn’t account for this

71
Q

Social support

A

Resist pressure to conform/obey if they have ally, someone supporting their view. Allies builds confidence + allows indiv to remain independent. breaks unanimity of group as there’s a break from agreement of majority. Indiv with support for their point of view, don’t feel being ridiculed allowing them to avoid NSI. Indiv with support for view more likely to disobey order as provides model of disobedience, which can be followed. Social support allows indiv to act according to own conscience. Means resisting social influence - withstanding social prepare to conform/obey authority

72
Q

Social support in Asch’s research

A

1 variation, confederate instructed to give correct answer throughout. Rate of conformity dropped to 5%. Demonstrates if real parti has support for their beliefs, more likely to resist pressure to conform. Non conforming confederate starts conforming again, so does parti. Shows effect of dissent isn’t long lasting.

73
Q

Social support in Milgram’s research

A

1 variation, real parti pared with 2 additional confederates also playing role of teacher. 2 additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from experiment early. % of real parti proceeded to 450V, dropped from 65% to 10%.Shows if real parti has social support for desire to disobey, they more likely to resist pressure of authority figure

74
Q

Social support in Asch’s study evaluation

A

P - resisting pressure of conform/obey if they have an ally, someone supporting their point of view
E - evident in Asch’s research where in 1 variation a confederate instructed to give correct answer throughout rate of conformity to 5%
E - demonstrates if real parti has support for belief more likely to resist pressure to conform
C - however when non-confirming confederate starts to conform so does parti. Effect of dissent for parti doesn’t last long


75
Q

Social support in Milgram evaluation

A

P - social support aids ability to withstand social pressure to conform/obey to majority 
E - Evidenced by Milgram’s research where 1 variation, real parti paired with 2 confederates, playing role of teachers. As 2 confederates withdraw from experi early, parti proceeding to 450V dropped from 65 to 5
E - shows social support can cause real parti to resist pressure to disobey authority figure
I - shows how social support helps people be independent and disobey, adding validity due to supportive evidence

76
Q

Social support evaluation (allen and levine0

A

P - conformity to majority view impacted by when social support arrives
E - Allen + Levine found parti more likely to dissent when dissentver was 1st confederate rather than 4th
E - earlier the parti’s judgement is confirmed, the better
I - there r factors that can impact how well social support prevents social influence

77
Q

Minority + social change (6 step process)

A
  1. Drawn attention to issue by getting majority to focus on the issue
  2. Minority is then influential because they express consistency of their position over time
  3. Causes deeper processing of the issue as people who had accepted status quote begin to question their beliefs
  4. Augmentation principle - majority begins to pay attention as minority willing to suffer for their view + seen mor committed so taken more seriously
  5. Snowball effect - minority initially had small impact but this then spread more widely and more and more people consider the issue
  6. Minority viewpoint becomes of the majority - social cryptomnesia (people have memory of social change occurred but don’t remember how it happened)
78
Q

Conformity creating social change

A

Dissent has power to create social change. Breaking power of majority, dissnter encourage others to dissent. Environmental + health campaigns exploit conformity by NSI - provide info on what others doing to get people to change behav

79
Q

Obedience creating social change

A

Potential to lead to social change. M’s research shows how disobedient role models meant real parti disobeyed. Through process of gradual commitment. Once small instruction obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People drift into new behav

80
Q

Conformity maintaining social change

A

Conform to new norms via compliance. Want to be able to fit in with people around them (NSI)

81
Q

Obedience Maintaining social change

A

New social norms may have laws + rules to ensure people obey new attitudes + behav.

82
Q

Social change + minority evaluation (slow changes)

A

P - social changes happens slowly when happening at all
E - eg taken decades for attitudes of drinking and smoking to shift
E - s effects of minority influence include consistency, commitment, flexibility may be weaker than 1st thought
I - limits use of minority influence in explaining social change

83
Q

Social change + minority evaluation (cognitive process in Moscivici’s study )

A

P - M’s conversion explanation of minority influence argues minority + majority influence different cognitive process
E - minority influence thought to case indiv to think deeply about an issue than majority influence
C - mackie disagrees + presents evidence that majority influence create deeper processing if u don’t share same view.
E - as we like to believe other people share our views + think same way as us. When we find majority of people believe something docent to us, then we forced to think long + hard about their arguments + reasoning. Central element of process of minority influence has been challenge + May be incorrect

84
Q

Social change + minority evaluation ( all heavily relied on studies)

A

P - explanation of social influence leasing social change relies on studies of asch, Milgram + moscivici
E - all studies criticises for lacking validity, iv + ev, due to artificiality of nature of tasks involved
E - undermine link suggested between social influence process + social change due to questionable supporting evidence
I - reduces validity of social influence leading to social change due to lack of supportive evidence

Psychology (10 decks)

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