social influence Flashcards
what is conformity?
A change in a person’s behaviour/ opinions due to pressure from a person or group of people
what are the 3 types of conformity?
identification, internalisation and compliance
what is identification?
An individual changes their public views to match those of a group, because they value the group and wish to be part of it (identify with it)
what is internalisation?
When an individual changes their public and private views or behaviour to match those of a group. This is a superficial change.
what is compliance?
When an individual changes their public, but not private, behaviour or views to match those of a group. This is a superficial type of conformity.
what are the 2 explanations for conformity?
NSI (Normative social influence) and ISI (informational social influence)
What is NSI?
It is when an individual agrees with the opinion of the majority because they want to gain social approval and be liked.
-NSI is the need to be liked
What is ISI?
ISI is when an individual agrees with the opinion the majority because they believe it is correct
-ISI is the need to be right
Conformity and Asch’s research
What was the aim?
To what extent people conform to the opinion of others
What 3 variables was Asch investigating?
Unanimity, task difficulty and group size
Did group size lead to an increase or decrease in conformity?
-INCREASED but only up to a point (3 confederates)
-3 confederates = conformity to wrong answer rose to 31.8%
-presence of more confederates made little difference
-Group sized varied 2-16
Did unanimity lead to an increase or decrease in conformity?
-DECREASED
-genuine participant = conformed LESS, in presence of dissenter
-dissenter = freed naïve participant, behaved independently
Did task difficulty lead to an increase or decrease in conformity?
-INCREASED as task difficulty got harder
-Asch made line lengths more similar (led to ISI)
A03 of Asch’s study into conformity = Artificial situation/task
-Limitation
-Participants knew this was a study, so played along (demand characteristics)
A03 of Asch’s study into conformity = Research support
-Strength
-Support for effects of task difficulty
-Todd Lucas et al : solve maths problems, got harder over time
-conformity increased = task got harder
conformity to social roles- Zimbardo
What was the aim of his study?
he wanted to know why prison guards behaved, brutally- was it because they have sadistic personality is, or was it their social role that created such behaviour?
Outline Zimbardo‘s research (SPE)- APPRC
APPRC:
Aim: Behaviour related to social roles and norms
Participants:
-21 male
-Student volunteers
-Tested “emotionally stable”
Procedure:
-Mock prison
-Guards ran prison
-Stanford University
Results:
-Guards = behaved brutally
-Prisoner’s rebellion inhibited
-Prisoners become depressed
-Study ended = 6 days
Conclusions: Relate to social roles
-Participants = conform strongly to their social roles
what did the prisoners have to wear in Zimbardo’s SPE study?
-A loose smock
-A cap to hide hair
-Identifies by a number
what did the guards have to wear in Zimbardo’s SPE study?
-Uniform to reflect their status
-Wooden club
-Handcuffs
-Mirror shades (helps with no eye contact between prisoner and guard)
-Uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individualisation)
A03 Zimbardo (SPE) = Control
-Strength
-Random assignment of roles = increases internal validity
A03 of Zimbardo (SPE) = lack of realism
-Limitation
-Play-acted social roles , media-derived stereotypes (Banuazizi & Movahedi)
A03 of Zimbardo (SPE) = Counterpoint for lack of realism
-Strength
-Evidence that prisoners though prison was real
-90% of conversations = about prison life (McDermott)
Define obedience
A form of social influence, in which an individual follows a direct order
APPRC for Milgram’s research into obedience
APPRC:
Aim:
-Were Germans different?
Participants:
-40 American men
-Yale University
Procedure:
-Participants gave ‘fake’ electric shocks to a ‘learner’ , responding to prods from ‘experimenter’
Results:
-65% gave highest shock of 450v
-100% gave shocks to 300v
-Many participants showed signs of anxiety e.g. sweating
Conclusions:
-German people are not ‘different’
-American participants willing to obey orders, even if it harms
A03 of Milgram’s study = Research support
-Strength
-French TV documentary (Milgram-type experiment)
-80% gave maximum shock
-Showed similar anxiety too ((Beauvois et al)
A03 of Milgram’s study = low internal validity
-Limitation
-Realised shocks = fake, so ‘play-acting’ (Orne & Holland)
-Supported by Perry- tapes of participants saying they knew shocks were fake (50% believed real)
what are the 3 situational variables according to Milgram?
-Proximity
-Location
-Uniform
define proximity
The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to
define location
The place where an order is issued
define uniform
people in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority
proximity- milgram
teacher and learner in same room- rate dropped from 65% to 40%
touch proximity variation- obedience dropped to further 30%
remote instruction variation- experimenter left room , instructors to teacher given via telephone- obedience = 20.5%
-decreased proximity allows for people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of actions
location- Milgram
-Variation in run-down office- obedience fell to 47.5%
-prestigious university environment gave the study legitimacy and authority (more obedience)
-However, obedience was quite high in office block as participants perceived ‘scientific’ nature of procedure
uniform- Milgram
Experimenter (grey lab coat) was called away
-replaced by ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes
-obedience dropped to 20%
- uniforms = widely recognised symbol of authority
-Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience
A03 of Milgram’s situational variables = Research support
-Strength
-Bickman = showed power of uniform in field experiment
A03 of Milgram’s situational explanations of obedience = cross-cultural replications
-Strength
-Replicated in other cultures (e.g. Dutch)
-90% participants obeyed to say stressful things to confederate
-Decreased proximity = decreased obedience (Meeus and Raajjmakers)
A03 of Milgram’s situational variables = Counterpoint of cross-cultural replications
-Limitation
-Most studies = western cultures (similar to USA)
-Cannot be generalised (Smith & Bond)
what are the 2 situational explanations of obedience?
Agentic state and legitimacy of authority
What is the agentic state?
-Where we feel NO PERSONAL responsibility for our actions
-We feel POWERLESS to DISOBEY
-Shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ = agentic shift
What other ‘state’ is linked to the agentic state?
autonomous state
What is the autonomous state?
-OPPOSITE of agentic state
-feel ‘autonomy’ = liberated/FREE to think on own
-feel a sense of RESPONSIBILITY
What did Milgram suggest about the agentic shift?
-It occurs when we perceive someone else as the authority figure
-Authority figure = greater power , higher position in SOCIAL HIERARCHY
How does Milgram define binding factors?
Aspects of the situation that allows someone to ignore the effects of their destructive behaviour
-Reduces ‘moral strain’
-People reduce the ‘moral strain’ by blaming victim or denying their behaviour
How does Milgram define binding factors?
Aspects of the situation that allows someone to ignore the effects of their destructive behaviour
-Reduces ‘moral strain’
-People reduce the ‘moral strain’ by blaming victim or denying their behaviour
A03 agentic state = Research support
-Strength
-Milgram’s resistant participants continued giving shocks when Experimenter took responsibility
A03 agentic state = a limited explanation
-Limitation
-Cannot explain why Rank and Jacobson’s nurses + some of Milgram’s participants disobeyed
Define legitimacy of authority
We are more likely to obey people, we perceive to have authority over us
-SOCIAL HIERARCHY
-learned in childhood
What is the type of authority where power is miss-used?
Destructive authority
Give an example of destructive authority
Hitler
A03 of L of A = explains cultural differences
-strength
-Australia obeyed 16% (Kilham & Mann)
-Germany obeyed 85% (Mantell)
-Reflects different society structures + how children raised
A03 of L of A = Cannot explain all (dis) obedience
-limitation
-Rank & Jacobson’s study (nurses in hierarchal society, did not obey legitimate authority)
Who came up with the authoritarian personality?
Adorno
Define authoritarian personality
Dispositional explanation of obedience
extreme respect for authority and submissiveness
What caused the authoritarian personality, according to Adorno?
-Harsh parenting
-creates hostility = expressed on others, not parents
What scale did Adorno create in his research?
-F-Scale
What is the F-Scale?
Studied unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
2000 middle-class, white Americans
What does the F-scale stand for?
F = Fascism/ Fascist
What were the findings from Adorno’s research?
-People with authoritarian personality = identify with ‘strong’ people who hold STEREOTYPES/ PREJUDGES
A03 of Adorno’s research = Research support
-strength
-Obedient participants had high F-scale scores (Elms & Milgram)
A03 of Adorno’s research = Limited explanation
-limitation
-Can’t explain obedience across a whole culture (only used white, american men)-
A03 of Adorno’s research = Political bias
-limitation
-F-scale only measures right-wing ideology
-ignores left-wing authoritarianism (Christie & Jahoda)
What are the 2 explanations of resistance to social influence?
Social support
LOC (locus of control)
Define resistance to social influence
Explaining why people disobey and resist the pressure to conform
Define social support
someone who resists pressure to conform/obey
helps others to do same
What are the 2 explanations of social support?
Resisting conformity
Resisting obedience
What is resisting conformity?
-Presences of a dissenter = reduces conformity
-Example = Asch
A03 social support (resisting conformity) = Real-world support
-Strength
-Teen Fresh start USA (14-19 adolescents) - 8 week programme
-Having a ‘buddy’ helps resist peer pressure to smoke (Albrecht et al)
What is resisting obedience?
-Presence of disobedient peer = decreases obedience
-Acts as model to follow = challenges L of A figure
-Example = Milgram- obedience dropped 65%-10%
A03 social support (resisting obedience) = research support for dissenting peers
-Strength
-Obedience to order from oil company = fell when in a group (Gamson et al)
-29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled
Define LOC
The sense we each have about what directs events in our lives
What are the 2 types of LOC?
-internals
-externals
Define internals (LOC)
They believe in personal responsibility
They are responsible for their own actions
Define internals (LOC)
They believe in personal responsibility
They are responsible for their own actions
(e.g. a bad test result is down to a lack of revision on their part)
Define externals (LOC)
They believe outside factors/ matter of luck are responsible for how they act
(e.g. a bad test result is down to the teacher or textbook)
LOC is on a what scale?
A continuum
What is the LOC continuum?
High internal at 1 end
High external at other end
Low internal + low external lie in-between
Are internals or externals more likely to resist social pressures?
Internals
What are the 3 characteristics of a high Internal LOC?
-Self-confident
-More achievement-orientated
-Higher intelligence
A03 of LOC = research support
-Strength
-Internals = less likely to fully obey in Milgram-type procedure (Holland)
-37% internals did not continue (Holland)
-23% externals did not continue (Holland)
A03 of LOC = contradictory research
-Limitation
-Twenge (et al) analysed data from American LOC studies (40 yr period, 1960-2002)
-Showed people = more resistant BUT more EXTERNAL!! (surprising outcome, should be more resistant = more internal)
A03 of LOC = contradictory research
-Limitation
-Twenge (et al) analysed data from American LOC studies (40 yr period, 1960-2002)
-Showed people = more resistant BUT more EXTERNAL!! (surprising outcome, should be more resistant = more internal)
Define minority influence
Leads to conversion (converting minority-majority) & internalisation
What are the 3 parts to minority influence (CCF)?
-CONSISTENCY (constant reminder of argument)
-COMMITMENT (personal sacrifices made to show passion about argument)
-FLEXABILITY (Showing compromises)
How does minority influence (CCF) bring about social change?
-Makes majority think more deeply about issue
-Snowball effect = minority view becomes majority influenced
What are the 6 parts to social change?
-Drawing Attention
-Consistency
-Deeper Processing
-Augmentation Principle
-Snowball effect
-Social cryptomnesia
How do we remember the 6 parts to social change?
-Dogs And
-Cats
-Do Poos
-At Parks
-Surprisingly Everyone
-Stays Clear
Explain the 6 parts to social change?
-Drawing Attention: Draw attention to argument/issue
-Consistency: always present SAME argument
-Deeper Processing: getting people to think deeper about argument/issue
-Augmentation Principle: Doing something extreme to draw more attention to issue/argument
-Snowball Effect: Minority-Majority support
-Social Cryptomnesia: Social change comes about but people do not remember how it happened
A03 of social change = Research support for NSI
-Strength
-NSI = valid explan of social change
-Example: ‘reduce ur energy’ study (Nolan et al), neighbours = reduced energy consump= others more likely to do so
A03 of social change = Counterpoint of research support for NSI
-Limitation
-NSI = does not always produce change (Foxcroft et al)1
A03 of social change = Minority influence explains change
-Strength
-Minority thinking inspires divergent, broader, creative thinking (Nemeth, 2009)
A03 of social change = Role of deeper processing
-Limitation
-Majority views are processed more deeply than minority views = challenges central feature of minority influence (Mackie,1987)
