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
