Social Influence Flashcards
What are the 3 types of conformity, and can you explain them?
1) Internalisation = genuinely accepting groups norms publicly and privately.
2) Identification = publicly changing opinions though we may not agree with all views in private.
3) Compliance = “going along with others” in public. A superficial/ temporary agreements that ceases without group pressure.
What are the two explanations for conformity?
1) Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- A desire to be right and is a cognitive process.
- Occurs in ambiguous or new situations.
- Leads to internalisation.
2) Normative Social Influence (NSI)
- A desire to behave like others and not look foolish.
- Emotional as we seek for social approval.
- Occurs in familiar and familiar situations.
Give one strength and one weakness of ISI
Research support:
- Lucas et al. (2006) - studied students on maths problems, the harder they got, the more conformity there was.
Individual differences:
- Lucas et al. study also showed participants with high maths ability conformed less.
- Perrin + Spencer (1980) found engineering students conformed much less 1/396.
Give one strength and one weakness of NSI
Research support:
- Asch found some would give a wrong answer because they were afraid of disapproval.
- Conformity fell to 12.5% when they wrote it down as giving private answers has no normative pressure affecting.
Individual differences:
- People who care more about being liked are called nAffiliators.
- McGhee + Teevan (1967) - found nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
Explain Asch’s (1951) procedure and what is what about.
- Variables affecting conformity.
- 123 American male students.
- Each ‘tested’ with 6-8 confederates.
- Identified length of a standard line.
- Confederates gave wrong answers together.
What were Asch’s (1951) findings?
- Naive participants gave wrong answers 36.8% of the time.
- 25% never gave a wrong answer.
- 75% conformed at least once.
- Most said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
What were the 3 variables affecting conformity?
- Group size
- Unanimity
- Task difficulty.
How did Asch change the variables affecting conformity?
1) Group size varied between 1-15 confederates.
2) Confederate introduced who was always dissenting but did not always give the correct answer.
3) Changing task difficulty; line lengths similar.
Give the findings of Asch’s (1955) study?
1) Group size - conformity peaked at 3 confederates, 32%.
2) Unanimity - dissenting confederate reduced conformity as the naïve participant could behave independently.
3)Task difficulty - conformity increased increased when the task was more difficult.
Critically evaluate Asch’s conformity research
1) ‘Child of the times’
- Perrin + Spencer found just 1/396 conformers in UK engineering students
- 1950s a more conformist time.
2) Situations and tasks were artificial:
- May have responded to demand characteristics.
- Trivial tasks and the group was not like a “real-life group”
- Findings may not generalise to everyday life?
3) Findings only apply to certain groups:
- Only men tested by Asch.
- Neto - women might be more conformist as they care more about social relationships.
- America and individualistic culture, higher in collectivist?
- Research cannot be applied to all without culture and beta bias.
Describe Zimbardo’s SPE procedure?
- Mock prison set up in Stanford Uni.
- 24 emotionally stable students were randomly assigned roles.
- Prisoners arrested in their homes and given numbers (de-individualisation).
- Guards were told they had complete power over prisoners.
- Both groups encouraged to conform through use of uniform.
What were the findings and conclusions of Zimbardo’s study?
Findings:
- Guards identified with role and became increasingly aggressive.
- Prisoners rebelled but became subdued and passive after harsh retaliation from guards.
- Ended early, 6 days not the intended 14.
- Three prisoners released early (psych distress) and one placed in the hole.
Conclusions:
- Shows the power of social roles, guards brutal, prisoners submissive.
- Other volunteers easily conformed, prison chaplain.
Give a strength of the SPE
Some control over variables:
- chose emotionally stable to play roles, randomly assigned which meant that the results were down to situational pressures.
Give four weaknesses of the SPE
1) SPE lacks realism:
Banuazizi and Mohavedi
- Participants were play-acting with behaviour reflecting stereotypes.
- One guard based his behaviour off the film Cool Hand Luke.
=> Counterpoint:
McDermott
- 90% of conversations were about prison life.
- Prisoner 416 believed it was a real prison run by psychologists.
2) Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles:
Fromm
- Only 1/3 guards behaved brutally.
- Minimised dispositional factors.
3) Generalisability:
- Impossible without gender (Beta) and cultural bias.
4) Ethical implications were not considered at all.
What was the procedure for Milgram (1963) study?
- 40 American men volunteered for “memory tests”.
- Participant = teacher, Confederate = learner and experimenter.
- Given an electric shock every time a wrong answer was given.
- Shocks went from 15V to 450V.
- Different prods were given by the experimenter.
What were the findings of Milgram’s (1963) study?
- No one stopped below 300V
- 12.5% stopped at 300V
- 65% went to 450V
- Participants showed signs of great tension (qualitative).
- Psychology students predicted no more than 3% would go to 450V.
- Participants debriefed to assure them that their behaviour was normal and 84% glad to have taken part.
What were the conclusions of the Milgram’s study?
We obey legitimate authority blindly.
Give two positive evaluations of Milgram’s study.
1) Replications
- French TV game.
- Contestants paid to give electric shocks (fake) to other participants (actors).
- 80% gave maximum shock to (acting) unconscious man.
2) Replications
Sheridan and King
- Participants gave real shocks to a puppy.
- 54% males and 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.
Give two negative evaluations of Milgram’s study.
1) Lacked internal validity:
Orne and Holland
- Participants guessed shocks were fake.
- Perry’s discovery that only half the participants believed the shocks to be real.
- Demand characteristics.
2) Findings are not due to blind obedience:
Haslam et al.
- Participants all obeyed the first three prods but not the fourth.
- First three required identification with the science of the research but the fourth required blind obedience.
What are the 3 explanations for obedience based on situational variables, and what results back this up?
1) Proximity - Obedience decreased if the proximity of the teacher and experimenter increased.
- Telephone instructions = 20.5% to 450V
Also decreased when proximity of teacher and leaner decreased, cannot psychologically distance themselves.
- 65% fell to 40% when in same room.
2) Location - Changed to a run-down building.
- Obedience fell to 47.5%
3) Uniform - Lab coated experimenter replaced by “ordinary member of public” in regular clothes.
- Obedience fell to 20%.
Give three positive evaluations for situational variables.
1) Research support:
Bickman
- Confederate wore different clothes asking people to pick up litter.
- 2x more likely to obey the “security guard” than a “jacket and tie” confederate.
2) Control of variables:
- Systematically altered one variable at a time
- Show cause and effect relationship between variables and obedience levels.
3) Cross-cultural replication:
Meeus and Raaijmakers
- Dutch participants ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees.
- Fell from 90% obedience when proximity decreased from person giving orders.
=> Counterpoint:
Still individualistic culture, what about collectivist?
Give one evaluative limitation of situational variables.
Low internal control:
Orne and Holland
- Participants even more likely to realise the faked procedure due to extra experimental manipulation, e.g. replacing teacher with member of the public.
- Demand characteristics
What are the two situational explanations for obedience?
1) Agentic state
2) Legitimacy of authority
Describe the agentic state
- Becoming “agent” of authority, loosing responsibility by acting on behalf.
- Autonomous state when you are free to act on your own conscience.
- Agentic shift = autonomous > agentic
- Binding factors reduce moral stain and avoid damaging effects of obedience.
Give one strength and one weakness of the agentic state.
1) Research support
- When the “experimenter” said they were responsible for Mr Wallace participants were more obedient. Participants acted more easily as agents.
2) Doesn’t explain many research findings:
Rand and Jacobson
- Nurses disobeyed doctors when asked to deliver excessive drug doses though the doctor is an authority figure.
What is legitimacy of authority?
- Obeying people at the top of a social hierarchy, agreed by society for smooth functioning.
- Hand over control to trusted authority, learned in childhood.
- Leaders can use legitimate authority destructively.
Give one strength and one weakness of legitimacy of authority.
1) Can explain cultural differences:
Kilham and Mann
- Only 16% of Australians went to 450V
Mantell
- 85% of Germans went to 450V
- Authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures than others.
2) Cannot explain all (dis)obedience:
Rank and Jacobson
- Nurses disobeyed doctor though there was established hierachy.
- Disposition may be more important than legitimacy of authority.
What is the authoritarian personality?
Adorno et al.’s dispositional explanation for obedience:
- High obedience is a psychological disorder.
- Extreme respect for (and submissiveness to) authority with contempt for “inferiors”.
- AP forms in childhood through harsh parenting and conditional love.
- Childs hostility towards parents is displaced onto weaker others.
What was the procedure of Adorno et al.’s Authoritarian personality study?
- 2000 middle class Americans.
- Investigating unconscious attitudes to other racial groups using F-scale (potential for Fascism scale).
What were the findings of Adorno’s study?
- High F-scale scorers showed deference to people higher up in society and were conscious of own status.
- Identified with “strong” people.
- Fixed cognitive style and prejudiced attitudes.
Give one positive evaluation for the Authoritarian personality.
Authoritarians are obedient:
Elms and Milgram
- Interviewed fully obedient participants, all scoring highly on the F-scale compared to control group.
How is the authoritarian personality a limited explanation for obedience?
1) Can’t explain whole countries behaviour:
- Millions of Germans displayed obedience and anti-Semitic behaviour but can’t all have AP type personality.
- Social identity theory instead?
2) F-scale is politically biased:
Christie and Jahoda
- F scale only measure right-wing ideology but what about Maoism which still insists on obedience and is left wing?
Give two explanations for resistance to social influence
1) Social support
2) Locus of control
How does social support lead to resistance of social influence?
Resisting conformity:
- Conformity reduced by dissenting peer, who acts as a model, shows majority is not unanimous. Asch’s research shows dissenter does not even have to give the right answer.
Resisting obedience:
- Obedience reduces if another is seen disobeying, undermines legitimacy of authority. Milgram’s research, disobedient peer condition, fell to 10% obedience.
Explain Locus of control and who invented it.
Rotter
Internals = Place control within themselves.
Externals = Place control outside of themselves.
- There is a continuum and everyone lies somewhere on it in a non-fixed way.
Which type of LOC is likely to show greater resistance to social influence
Internal
- They take personal responsibility for their own action.
- More self-confident so don’t feel the need for social approval (ISI conformity less likely).
Give two strengths of social support.
1) Evidence for resisting conformity:
- Pregnant adolescents had older “buddy” as social support to help them not smoke.
- This group were less likely too smoke, at then end of the programme, than the control group without buddies.
2) Evidence for the role of dissenting peers:
Gamson et al.
- Group asked to give evidence for oil company in a smear campaign.
- 29/33 groups rebelled against orders.
Give one strength and one weakness for LOC.
1) Support for the role of LOC in resisting obedience:
Holland
- Repeated Milgram’s study to find internals or externals.
- 37% of internals did not go to 450V.
- 23% of externals did not go to 450V.
= validity of LOC.
2) Not all research supports LOC:
Twenge et al.
-Analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years.
-More independent but also more externals.
- If resistance linked to LOC, we would expect more internals.
- LOC may not be valid.
What is minority influence, how does it change beliefs and what three factors are needed for change.
One person or a small group of people influences the beliefs and behaviours.
Internalisation is how beliefs are changed and there are three processes:
1) Consistency:
Always doing the same thing.
- Synchronic and Diachronic
2) Commitment:
Helping to gain attention through extreme activities.
- Augmentation principle
3) Flexibility:
Showing willingness to listen to others.
- Balance
Explain Consistency
Consistency:
Always doing the same thing.
- Synchronic consistency = people in the minority are all saying the same thing.
- Diachronic consistency = they’ve been saying the same thing for a while.
Explain Commitment
Commitment:
Helping to gain attention through extreme activities.
- Augmentation principle =
Majority pay more attention when minority take risks and makes them rethink their view.
Explain Flexibility
Flexibility:
Showing willingness to listen to others.
- Consistency and flexibility should be balanced to not appear rigid.
What are the two words for when the minority view becomes the majority view; explain it.
Snowball effect:
- Individuals think deeply (deeper processing) and convert.
- Over time more people are converted and minority change to majority.
- The more this happens the faster the rate of conversion and social change and social cryptomnesia has occurred.
Explain research done into minority influence
Moscovici et al.
Blue-green slides study
- 8.42% conformed to consistent minority
- 1.25% conformed to inconsistent minority
Give two positive evaluations for minority influence.
1) Research support for consistency:
Moscovici et al.
- Consistent minority opinion had greater effect than an inconsistent opinion (blue/green slides test).
Wood et al.
- Meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies. Minorities seen as consistent were most effective.
2) Research support for deeper processing:
Martin et al.
- Gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured attitudes. Then they heard form either minority or majority. Finally another conflicting view and another attitude measure.
- Less willing to change to the new conflicting view if they had heard the minority speak.
Give one evaluative limitation of minority influence.
Research often involves artificial tasks:
- In Moscovici et al.’s research the task was identifying the colour of a slide. Jury-decision making and political campaigns function very differently.
- Lacks external validity
Describe lessons learned from minority influence
e.g. Civil Rights.
1) Civil right marches drew attention to segregation.
2) Minority marched but they were consistent.
3) Deeper thinking followed of the unjustness of it all.
4) Augmentation principle - freedom riders were mixed racial groups who got on buses in the south to challenge separate seating.
5) Snowball effect
6) Social cryptomnesia
Describe lessons from conformity research
- Dissenters make social change more likely.
- Gov and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI.
Describe lessons from obedience research
- Disobedient models make change more likely.
- Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour.
