Social Influence Flashcards
1
Q
Conformity- Asch- AO1
A
- A- extent conform opinion of others even when unambiguous
- P- 123 white male American
- P- 3 lines 1 standard / out loud which same length / 6-8 / 1 naive / second to last
- R- overall conformed 36.8% / 25% of p’s never conformed
- C- conformed even when unambiguous / NSI- avoid rejection
2
Q
Conformity- Asch Variations- AO1
A
- Group Size- curvilinear relationship / conformity increase with group size / only up to point / 7 confederates = highest conformity
- Unanimity- confederate disagreed with others / conformity decreased to > 1/4 what it was when unanimous
- Task Difficulty- conformity increase with difficulty / ISI
3
Q
Conformity- Asch- AO3
A
- Artificial task -
Demand characteristics, trivial- no reason not to conform
Fiske- groups not representative
Not generalisable - Limited Application -
American men- Neto- women more conformist as concerned acceptance and relationships
USA=individualist, collectivist=more conformist
Little conformity in women/cultures - Research Support +
Lucas- easy and hard maths Q’s
Answers from students, conformity increase with harder problems- ISI
Asch correctly claimed difficulty affect conformity
4
Q
Conformity- Types and Explanations- AO1
A
Types- Kelman
- Internalisation- deepest / majority view is correct / public + private / permanent even when not with group
- Identification- moderate / value and want to be part / public and private / may not agree everything
- Compliance- temporary / public not private / lasts as long as group present
Explanations- Deutsch + Gerard
- ISI- right / cognitive / permanent- internalisation / ambiguous and crisis situations
- NSI- liked / emotional / temporary- compliance / people you know and stressful situations
5
Q
Conformity- Types and Explanations- AO3
A
- Research Support ISI +
Lucas- conformity increase with difficult problems
Hard=ambiguous did not want to be wrong
Valid as results what ISI predicted - Research Support NSI +
Asch- p’s conformed as afraid of disapproval
When answers written, conformity decrease 12.5%
Conformity due to not wanting rejection - Individual differences NSI -
nAffiliators- want to be liked
McGhee + Teevan- they’re more like to conform, want to relate to others
NSI explains conformity in some more than others
6
Q
Conformity- Social Roles- AO1
A
Stanford Prison Experiment-Zimbardo
- A- prison guards brutal because sadistic or situation creates behaviour
- P- 21 white male American volunteers
- P- randomly assigned / uniform-deindividuation / more likely conform / parole / guards=shifts
- R- 2 days rebelled / subdued,depressed / released psych. disturbance / ended 6 day instead 14
- C- social roles=strong influence behaviour
7
Q
Conformity- Social Roles- AO3
A
- Control +
Selection of p’s / role allocation
Ruled out personality differences- if behaved different due to role itself
Increase internal validity - Lack of realism -
Banuzizi + Movahedi- p’s play acting
Based on stereotypes- Cool Hand Luke=brutal character
Tell little of conformity in real prisons - Exaggerates power of roles -
Fromm- 1/3 brutal 1/3 fair 1/3 helpful
Most guards resisted situational pressures to conform
Minimised influence of dispositional factors
8
Q
Obedience- Milgram- AO1
A
- A- why Germans obey Hitler, more obedient/different
- P- 40 white American male volunteers
- P- p’s always Teacher / electric shock when made mistake / up to 450V / Experimenter prods-please continue,must continue
- R- 100% up to 300V / 65% 450V
- C- German people not different
9
Q
Obedience- Milgram- AO3
A
- Research Support +
Replicated in Le Jeu De La Mort
80% p’s=max 460V
Behaviour identical to Milgram’s p’s
Supports original findings - Low internal validity -
Orne + Holland- p’s play acting
Perry- 1/2 believed shocks were real, 2/3 of these were disobedient
Responding to demand characteristics - Alternative interpretation findings -
Haslam- obeyed first 3 prods, on 4 every p disobeyed
Social identity theory- obeyed when identified with aims
SIT more valid interpretation
10
Q
Obedience- Situational Variables- AO1
A
- Proximity- T+L in same room=65% decrease to 40%
Instructions via phone=20.5% obey
Allowed psychological distance from consequences of actions - Location- run-down office block=47.5% obedience
Uni was prestigious and gave legitimacy and authority- Experimenter shared this - Uniform- Experimenter (lab coat) taken over by public (everyday clothes)=20% obedience
Uniforms encourage obedience as sign of legitimate authority
11
Q
Obedience- Situational Variables- AO3
A
- Research Support +
Bickman- field experiment NY, jacket and tie, milkman and security guard
Asked people to perform tasks
2x likely obey guard than jacket and tie
Situational variable=powerful effect - Cross-cultural Replications +
Meeus + Raaijmakers- Dutch p’s, say stressful things to confederate
90% obeyed
Proximity- when order giver not present, obedience decreased
Findings not limited to American males - Low internal validity -
Orne + Holland- p’s aware was fake due to extra manipulation of variables
Milgram= situation so contrived when experimenter replaced with public that p’s worked out truth
Saw through deception or actually due to obedience
12
Q
Obedience- Situational Explanations- AO1
A
- Agentic State- no responsibility as acting for an authority figure
Autonomous State- responsibility as have free will
Shift from autonomy to agency=agentic shift
Binding factors- aspects of situation allow ignorance of consequences of behaviour - Legitimacy Of Authority- more likely to obey people who have authority over us- legitimated by position in hierarchy
Destructive authority=using legitimate power for destructive purposes eg. Hitler
13
Q
Obedience- Situational Explanations- AO3
A
- Research Support AS +
Milgram- p’s resisted giving shocks at some point, asked experimenter who responsible, when found was not them, continued with procedure with no exceptions
When no longer responsible, acted more easily as agent - Limited Explanation AS -
Rank + Jacobson- does not explain findings, 16/18 nurses disobeyed high drug dose to patient
Almost all remained autonomous
Agentic shift accounts for some situations - Explains Cultural Differences LoA +
Countries differ degree of obedience
Kilham + Mann- 16% female Australian p’s 450V
Mantell- German p’s=85%
Authority more accepted as legitimate in some cultures - Cannot Explain All Obedience LoA -
Rank + Jacobson- most disobedient despite hierarchical authority
Minority of Milgram’s p’s disobeyed experimenter (authority)
People may be more or less obedient than others
14
Q
Obedience- Dispositional Explanation- AO1
A
- Adorno- 2000 M/C white Americans, unconscious attitudes toward racial groups
F-scale (fascist) to measure authoritarian personality
People who scored highly=contemptuous of weak / respect to those of higher status / stereotypical / no fuzziness - Authoritarian Personality- respect for authority / society weaker than was = more likely to obey authority / people who are other=responsible for ills of society
- Origins of Personality- forms in childhood due to harsh parenting, create resentment and hostility but displaces onto others (psychodynamic)
15
Q
Obedience- Dispositional Explanation- AO3
A
- Research Support +
Milgram + Elms- interviewed p’s from original obedience studies
20 obedient p’s=higher on F-scale than comparison 20 disobedient
Obedient similar to AP - Limited Explanation -
Pre-war Germany- obedient, racist, anti-Semitic, despite differing in personality
Unlikely all possess AP
Alternative=majority identified with Nazi state=social identity theory
Alternative explanation is more realistic - Political Bias -
Only measures toward right-wing
Christie + Jahoda- F-scale=politically biased, reality of left wing
Extreme right and left wing have a lot in common- complete obedience
Not comprehensive explanation accounting for whole political spectrum
16
Q
Resistance to Social Influence- AO1
A
- Social Support
Resisting conformity- other people not conforming / enable naive to follow own conscience / dissent=majority not unanimous
Resisting obedience- another person disobeying / acts as model of dissent for p to copy / can act of own conscience - Locus Of Control
Rotter- what directs events in lives / internal=controlled by themselves / external=outside forces control
LoC continuum- scale, high/low internal and external
Resistance to social influence- high internal=more resistant to conformity/obedience / high internal=more intelligent and confident=greater resistance
17
Q
Resistance to Social Influence- AO3
A
- Real-world Research Support SS +
Albrecht- Teen Fresh Start USA, pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke
Social support from buddy, those with buddy=less likely smoke than control
SS can help resist social influence - Research Support for Dissents SS +
Gamson- p’s evidence help company campaign, higher levels resistance than Milgram
P’s in groups- 29/33 rebelled against orders
SS can lead to disobedience - Research Support LoC +
Holland- repeated Milgram baseline to measure whether p’s internal/external
37% internals=did not highest shock, 23% externals did not / internals=greater resistance
Resistance partly related to LoC, increasing validity - Contradictory Research LoC -
Twenge- data from American LoC over 40 year period
People became more resistant but more external, if resistance linked to internal we would expect more internal
LoC not valid explanation of resistance
18
Q
Minority Influence- AO1
A
- Minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs
Leads to internalisation
Moscovici- blue/green slides - Consistency
Keeping the same beliefs
Draws attention to minority view and makes others rethink own views - Commitment
Demonstrating dedication to position
(Augmentation principle)
Shows minority not acting out of self interest - Flexibility
Accepting the possibility of compromise
Nemeth- being too consistent is off putting - Snowball effect
19
Q
Minority Influence- AO3
A
- Research support consistency +
Moscovici- blue/green slides showed consistent minority=greater effect changing views than inconsistent
Wood- meta-analysis, minorities seen as consistent=most influential
Consistency=minimum requirement - Research support DP +
Martin- message of viewpoint and measured p’s agreement
Minority/majority agree with it
P’s exposed to conflicting view and measured agreement again
Less willing to change opinion if listened to minority
Minority more deeply processed - Artificial tasks -
Moscovici- identifying colour of slide, far removed from minority influence in real life
Jury decision making=vastly more important outcomes
Findings lack external validity
20
Q
Social Change- AO1
A
- When whole societies adopt new beliefs
- Drawing attention
- Consistency
- Deeper processing
- Augmentation principle
- Snowball effect
- Social cryptomnesia
- Lessons from conformity
Asch- confederate broke power of majority, dissent could lead to social change
Appealing to normative social influence, drawing attention to what majority are doing - Lessons from obedience
Milgram- confederate=decrease obedience
Zimbardo- gradual commitment, once small instruction obeyed becomes difficult to resist bigger one
21
Q
Social Change- AO3
A
- Research support NSI +
Nolan- change people’s energy habits
Messages on doors saying most residents wanting to reduce energy
Significant decreases in energy
Valid as NSI leads to social change - Minority influence explains change +
Nemeth- social change due to thinking minorities inspire
Minority=divergent thinking- broad, weighs up options=better decisions
Dissenting minorities are valuable - Role of deeper processing -
Mackie- majority influence creates DP if you do not share views
When majority believes something different, forced to think about arguments/reasoning
Weakens validity
