Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

A-Level Psychology 🌷 > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Social influence

A

Social influence is the scientific study of the ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviour are affected by other people

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

What is conformity?

A

Conformity is the tendency to change what we do, think or say in response to the influence of real or imagined pressure from others

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

3 types of conformity

A

Types of conformity:
-Compliance
-Identification
-Internalisation

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

Compliance

A

Compliance - conforming publicly but continuing privately to disagree - shallowest form of conformity

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

Identification

A

Identification - morderate form of conformity where we act the same as the group because we share their values and want to be accepted. The change of belief or behaviour is often temporary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Internalisation

A

Internalisation - deep type of conformity where a person conforms publicly and privately because they have internalised and accepted the views of the group - the deepest form of conformity

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

Explanations for conformity

A

Explanations for conformity:
-Normative social influence
-informational social influence

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

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

A

Deutsch and Gerad (1955) developed a two-process theory which proposes that there are two main reasons why people conform. Based on two central human needs:
-They need to be liked
-They need to be right

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

Normative social influence

A

Normative social influence occurs when we want to be liked by the majority, so we go along even if we disagree (followng a crowd to fit the norm)

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

Informational social influence

A

Informational social influence occcurs when we look to the majority group for information as we are unsure about the way in which to behave.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Supporting research for normative influence

A

Supporting research for noamtive influence:
Schultz et al (2008) found hotel guests exposed to normative message that 75% guests re used their towels every day reduced their own towl use by 25% suggesting that people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with a group.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Supporting research of informational influence

A

Supporting research of informational influence:
Wittenbrink and Henley (1996) found that Pps exposed to negative information about african americans later reported more negative beliefs about a black individual

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

Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment (1973) procedure

A

Zimbardo stanford prison experiment (1973) procedure:
-Mock prison in basement of psych depart at Stanford Uni to investigate effect of social roles on conformity
-21 male volunteers that were ‘emotionally stable’
-Volunteers randomly allocated to guard or prisoner
-Stopped after 6 days (planned was 14 days)

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

What were the two routes in the Zimbardo experiment that encouraged social roles?

A

-Uniform: prisoners strip searched, given uniform and number, encouraged de-indiviualisation
-Instructions about behaviour: prisoners were told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole, guards told they had power over prisoners

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

Conclusions/Findings of the Zimbardo experiment

A

Conclusions/findings of the zimbardo experiment:
-Guards played their roles enthusiastically and treated prisoners harshly
-Prisoners rebelled within 2 day - ripped uniforms, shout and swore at guards
-Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners
-Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour
-guards became brutal, prisoners became submissive

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

How did the guards behaviour threaten the prisoners psychological and physical health?

A

-Prisoners subdued, anxious and depressed after rebellion was put down
-3 prisoners were released early because of signs of psychological disturbance
-One prisoner went on hunger strike - prisoners punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’

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

Srength of the stanford prison experiment

A

Strengths of the stanford prison experiment:
-Emotionally stable parts were used and randomly allocated > roles given by chance - so behaviour is down to role and not personalities > increased internal validity

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

Limitations of the stanford prison experiment

A

Limitations of the stanford prison experiment:
-It was suggest that parts were play-acting eg basing roles on characters from media eg films > suggests the SPE tells little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
-Power of social rules influencing behaviour may have been exaggerated > there was variety in the behaviours > suggests the SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences

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

Lucas et al (2006)

A

Lucas _et al _(2006) found that when presented with difficult maths problems to solve, participants were more likely to conform to the majority answer, showing that people will conform due to the need for information (ISI).

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

Asch (1951)

A

Asch (1951) found that people conformed to a majority, even giving an obviously wrong answer. This supports that people will conform in order to fit in with a group (NSI).

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

Assumptions of normative social influence and informational social influence

A

Individual differences are not considered- the explanations assume everyone is affected by ISI and NSI in the same way. Some people do not wish to fit in with a group, due to their personality- these explanations do not account for this.

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

Aim of Asch’s research (1951)

A

Asch’s aim: to see if people will conform to a majority even with an obvious answer

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

Asch (1951) procedure

A

Asch procedure:
-Lab experiment
-123 male parts > volunteer sampling
-6-8 confederates (aware of the experiment)
-18 trials (12 critical - confederates give wrong answer)

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

Task for Asch experiment

A

Asch task = identify which line matches one on the comparison card

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

Findings of the Asch experiment

A

Asch experiment findings:
-36.8% of clinical trials, conformity took place
-75% of parts conformed at least once
-25% of parts never conformed

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

Conclusion of the Asch experiment

A

Conclusion of the Asch experiment:
-Findings imply that an individual will conform to a majority as a result of imagined group pressure even if they know privately it is wrong
-Findings suggest that compliance took place and parts were influenced by normative social influence

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

Positive evaluation of Asch experiment

A

Positive evaluation of Asch experiment:
-Lab experiment > controlled environment > eliminates extraneous variables > replicable > more reliable (counter: artificial setting > demand characteristics > invalid)

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

Negative evaluation of Asch experiment

A

Negative evaluation of Asch experiment:
-Ethical issue > lack of informed consent > parts unaware of true aim > deception due to confederates (counter = deception needed to prevent parts changing + to get realistic results > parts were debriefed after)
-Sample > only males > biased > unrepresentative > issues of generalisation > lacks population validity

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

What is obediance?

A

Obediance is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order, usually given by an authority figure

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

Aim of Milgram’s obediance study

A

The aim was to investigate how far people would go in obeying an instruction from an authority figure even if it involved harming others

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

Procedure of Milgram’s obediance study

A

Procedure:
-Lab experiment in Yale university
-40 male participants, volunteers through newspaper ads
-Paid $4.50 to participants
-Participants decieved - told roles were allocated, but parts always given teacher role and confederates always given learner role
-They were told to give shocks to the learners when they made mistake, from 15V to 450V
-Told they could leave but pressured to stay: 4 prods: must continue, essential to continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Findings of Milgram’s study into obediance

A

Findings:
Quantitative: 100% went to 300V, 12.5% stopped at 300V, 65% went to 450V
Qualitiative: parts showed tension and stress, with three even having seizures

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

Conclusion of Milgram’s study into obediance

A

Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (even if it goes against common sense and humanity)

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

Negatives of Milgram’s study into obediance

A

Milgram negatives:
-Ethical issues - parts were decieved, udnergone psychological harm and pressured to stay > questions findings
-Unrepresentative sample, can’t be generalised (cultural + beta bias)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Positives of Milgram’s study into obediance

A

Milgram positives:
-Tried to deal with ethical concerns: debriefing, sharing results, checkups on parts
–Supporting research: Hofing’s hospital experiment + Sheridan&King’s puppy experiment - backed up his findings
-Practical application - ie soldiers
-Lab experiment> controled extraneous variables > measurable, replicable, reliable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Variations implemented by Milgram to show how situational variables can influence levels of obediance

A

Variations implemented by Milgram:
-Changing location to a run-down office (47.5% went to 450V)
-Teacher and learner in same room (40% went to 450V)
-Teacher forces learners hand onto a plate to recieve shock (30% to 450V)
-Experimenter gave orders by phone (20.5% went to 450V)
-Experimenter played my member of public (no lab coat) (20.5% went to 450V)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Examples of situational variables that affect obedience

A

Situational variables that affect obedience:
-Proximity
-Uniform
-Location
-Cultural variation
-Consequences
-Gradual commitment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Proximity as a situational variable that affects obedience

A

Proximity as a situational variable that affects obedience:
-The physical closeness of the authority figure directly impacts obedience
-Positive correlation = closer authority figure is, higher obedience
-Visible authority figures increase obedience due to fear of consequences and more psychological pressures to obey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Uniform as a situational variable that affects obedience

A

Uniform as a situational variable the affects obedience:
-Acts as a visible symbol of authority
-Reinforces status
-Can be seen through clothing or titles eg Dr/Police uniform
-Eg BIckman experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Bickman experiment

A

Bickman experiment:
-Litter study in New York -> 3 confederates dressed differently -> policeman, tie and jacket, milkman -> security guard more obedience -> uniform affects obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Evaluation of the Bickman experiment (litter study that investigated obedience)

A

Bickman experiment evaluation:
+ = Field experiment -> high ecological validity, true to life, reflects every day behaviour
+ = Reduction in dc, natural setting, unaware of research, more valid
- = Ethical issues > parts decieved but was necessary
- = Field -> no control over extraneous variables

42
Q

Factors that affect individual’s perception of an authority figure

A

Factors that affect individual’s perception of an authority figure:
-Socialisation process (upbringing)
-Polarity of roles eg doctor/nurse, teacher/pupil
-Hierarchy

43
Q

Location as a situational variable that affects obedience

A

Location as a situational variable that affects obedience:
-Where obedience takes place eg Milgram changing location from Yale to run-down office decreased obedience
-More legitimate place = more obedience
-Higher obedience in instutionalised settings where obedience is instilled due to socialisation eg employer/employee

44
Q

Cultural variations as a situational factor in obedience

A

Cultural variations as a situational factor in obedience:
-Cultural upbringings influence obedience
-Eg Kelman and Mantell (Australians less obedient than Germans)
-Eg Smith + Bond (individualistic = more obedient, collectivist = more obedient)

45
Q

Consequences as a situational variable in obedience

A

Consequences as a situational variable in obedience:
-Consequences such as harm/death can influence obedience, eg soldiers are buffered from consequences

46
Q

Gradual commitment as a situational variable

A

Gradual commitment refers to when an individual has gone so far, that they believe they ‘may as well carry on’ - eg Milgram’s increasing shock generator

47
Q

Social-phsychological explanations for obediance

A

Socio-pyschological explanations for obedience: sometimes individuals may obey because of a combination of situational and psychological factors - eg Milgram’s agency theory

48
Q

Milgram’s agency theory

A

Milgram’s agency theory:
Individuals learn from an early age (socialisation) that obedience to rules is necessary and important for stability in society - individual has to give up free will to do this

49
Q

Agentic state

A

Agentic state - when an individual obeys because they perceive themselves as an agent of others - therefore more likely to obey
-Individual will have no conscience/responsibility for acts of obedience due to being free of conscience
-State of de-individualisation - > loses sense of identity -> easier to obey

50
Q

Examples of agentic state within experiments

A

Agentic state examples:
~Milgram - teacher - responsible for situation
~Hofling - nurses - nurses obeys because they were agents of the doctors

51
Q

Where does agentic theory believe obediance occurs?

A

Agentic theory - obedience occurs in hierarchical situations - more likely to obey an individual of a higher rank - they have greater power

52
Q

Autonomous state

A

Autonomous state - opposite of agentic shift
-Individual is independant, responsible for their actions and has free will - less likely to obey unless chosen to
-Eg: Milgram’s variation where the participant forces hand on plate

53
Q

Differences between compliance and internalisation

A

Compliance - Superficial, stops when there are no group pressures to conform, conformity occurs only at a public levels and not a private level
Internalisation - true conformity, involves genuine acceptance of group norms and so conformity occurs at both a public and a private level

54
Q

The Authoritarian Personality

A

The authoritarian personality - proposed by Adorno et al - concluded that people with an authoritarian personality are especially obediant to authority as they:
-Have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it
-Express contempt for people of inferior social status
-They tend to follow orders and view ‘other’ groups as responsible for society’s problems

55
Q

Origin of the authoritarian personality

A

Authoritarian personality forms in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism

56
Q

Scapegoating

A

Scapegoating - psychodynamic explanation - feelings that cannot be expressed to parents due to feared reprisals cause them to displace their feelings onto those who are weaker

57
Q

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - AIM

A

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - AIM:
The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans

58
Q

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - PROCEDURE

A

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - PROCEDURE:
-Several scales - including F-scale (Potential for fascism scale)
-‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn’
-‘There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents’

59
Q

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - FINDINGS

A

Adorno et al (1950) experiment on the Authoritarian personality - FINDINGS:
-Authoritarians (who scared high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’ -> conscious of own and other’s status - excessive respect and defence for those of higher satus
-Authoritarian people had a cognitive style -> fixed and distinctive stereotypes (predjudices) against other groups

60
Q

Positive evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience

A

Positive evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience:
-Authoritarians are obedient -> supported by Milgram’s research -> scored high on the F-scale -> suggests obedient people may share many characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality
(Counter: there is a complex link as obedients parts on the F-scale had characteristics unusual for authoritarians)

61
Q

Negative evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience

A

Negative evaluation of the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience:
-Doesn’t explain a whole country’s behaviour -> eg during Nazi Germany -> social identity theory may be a better explanation
-F-scale is politically biased -> aimed towards extreme right-wing ideology although left-wind ideology also believes in authoritarian obedience

62
Q

Social identity theory as an explanation for obedience

A

Social identity theory as an explanation for obedience:
The view that our behaviour and attitudes are strongly influenced by those of the groups we identify with

63
Q

Reasons why people resist social influence

A

Reasons why people resist social influence:
-Social support
-Locus of control (LOC)

64
Q

Social support as a reason as to why people resist social influence

A

Social support:
-Having an ally - someone to support their point of view
-Can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independant - no longer feel rediciules - avoids NSI
-Less likely to obey orders and are able to resist pressure

65
Q

Social support evaluation

A

Social support evaluation:
-Supporting research = Asch’s variations - confederate gives right answer all throughout - conformity dropped to 5% - shows social support makes people more likely to resist pressure to conform
-Supporting research = Milgram’s variations - real participant paired with two additional confeds who played as teachers who refused and withdrew from the experiment = conformity to 450V dropped from 65% to 10%

66
Q

Locus of control definition

A

Locus of control - the extent to which people believe they have control over their own lives

67
Q

Internal locus of control

A

Internal locus of control - believes what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and they have control over their life - more independant and find it easier to resist pressure to conform or obey

68
Q

External locus of control

A

External locus of control - believes what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they don’t have complete control over their life - more likely to succumb to pressure to conform

69
Q

Locus of control positive evaluation

A

Locus of control positive evaluation:
+ = Supporting research - Rotter’s locus of contorl scale used by Spector (1983) - found people with high internal LOC less likely to conform than those with high external LOC but only in situations of NSI
+ = Supporting research - Oliner and Oliner (1998)

70
Q

Locus of control negative evaluation

A

Locus of control negative evaluation:
- = Contradictory evidence - Twenge et al (1967) conducted meta-analysis of studies - found that over time people have become more external in their locus of control but also more resistant to obedience

71
Q

Factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority

A

Factors that can enhance the effectiveness of a minority:
-Consistency
-Commitment
-Flexibility

72
Q

Consistency in enhancing the effectiveness of minority influence

A

Consistency refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority members share the same belief and retain it over time

73
Q

Experiment that studied into minority influence

A

Moscovici (1969) studied into minority influence

74
Q

Aim of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study

A

Aim of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study:
To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer, in a colour perception task

75
Q

Procedure of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study

A

Procedure of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence study:
172 female participants who were told that they were taking part in a colour perception task, participants were placed in groups of sic and shown 36 slides which were all varying shades of blue, participants had to state out loud the colour of each slide.
2 of the 6 participants were confederates, and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green; in the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue

76
Q

Findings of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment

A

Findings of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment:
Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.

77
Q

Conclusion of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment

A

Conclusion of Moscovici’s 1969 minority influence experiment:
: Moscovici’s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence

78
Q

Commitment as a factor that enhances minority influence

A

Commitment:
-Engaging in risky/extreme behaviour in order to draw attention to their views

79
Q

Augmentation principle

A

Augmentation principle = minorities placing themselves at risk to demonstrate commitment to their cause in order for the majority to then in turn pay more attention to the actions being taken and therefore integrate it into their personal views

80
Q

Flexibility as a factor that enhances minority influence

A

Flexibility = refres to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur when the minority is willing to compromise - this means they cannot be viewed as dogmatic and unreasonable

81
Q

Aim of Nemeth 1986 minority influence experiment

A

Aim of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
Nemeth believed that consistency was not the most important factor in minority influence, suggesting that it can be often misinterpreted as a negative trait - she set about investigating the idea of flexbility as a key characteristic of sucessful minorities who exert pressure

82
Q

Procedure of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment

A

Procedure of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
: Participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give to a victim of a ski-lift accident.
One of the participants in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions:
1 – when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation and refused to change their position (inflexibile)
2- when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slightly higher rate of compensation (flexible)

83
Q

Results of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment

A

Results of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence experiment:
Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority; however, in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to also compromise and change their view
His results supports ISI as in one of his variation, parts wrote down their answers and found that more agreed with the minority when doing is privately

84
Q

Conclusion of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study

A

Conclusion of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study:
Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility, and questions the idea of consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most successful strategy for a minority to adopt

85
Q

Evaluation of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study

A

Evaluation of Nemeth’s 1986 minority influence study:
- = Biased sample of 172 female participants from America – unable to generalise the results – low validity
- = Breaks ethical guidelines – deceived his participants – therefore did not gain fully informed consent – however it was crucial for the experiment that they were deceived in order for them to not show demanded characteristics
- Methodological issues with research into minority influence – artificial tasks that lacks mundane realism since it is not something that occur everyday – lacks external validity

86
Q

Social change

A

Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations

87
Q

Examples of social change in real life

A

Examples of social change in real life: Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Park, Suffragettes

88
Q

Processes that explain social change

A

Processes that explain social change:
-Consistency = beneficial in bring social change as consistency makes a message appear more credible and helps to convince a majority
-Deeper processing = people thinking more about the issue at hand
-Drawing attention = majority must be made aware of the need for change
-The augementation principle
-The snow ball effect = one minority gains attention of majority, it gains attention of others
-Social cryptoamnesia - source of social change has been dissociated and therefore does not know how social change has happened
-NSI
-Gradual commitment

89
Q

Positive evaluation of social change

A

Positive evaluation of social change:
+ = Supporting research - Nolan’s study supports the role of NSI as a process for social change - where social change is promoted to the majority to urge them to follow in order to suit in for normative reasons eg to fit in

90
Q

Negative evaluation of social change

A

Negative evaluation of social change:
- = Methodological issues - studies into social change generally lack generalisability and having demanded caracteristics - doubts about validity
- = Minority influence can act as a barrier to social change - Bashir found that participants did not want to be associated with stereotypical minority groups, such as environmentalists. This reduces minority influence.

91
Q

3 variables that affect conformity (and how they are demonstrated in Asch’s line experiment variation)

A

3 variables that affect conformity (and how they are demonstrated in Asch’s line experiment variation):
-Group size ->Asch varied between 1 and 15 confeds - found lowest at 1 and highest at 3 -> shows a correlation
-Unanimity -> variation where only one confederate gave right answer all throughout -> conformity rate dropped to 5% - > demonstrates that if the participant has real support for their belief, they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform
-Task difficulty -> rate of conformity increased when difficulty of the line task increased -> likely to be the result of ISI

92
Q

What would be put in a consent form?

A

Consent form:
-Outline the procedure
-Ask for them to sign/give consent
-Outline there is no pressure/can withdraw at any time
-Ensure them that the data will be kept confidential and anonymous

93
Q

Why might stratified sampling be used?

A

Stratified sampling may be used because:
-It ensures that various groups are represented in terms of their proportionality in the population -> improves the generalisability of the results

94
Q

Situational factors that affect conformity

A

Situational factors that affect conformity:
-Group size-> larger groups are more influential in conformity
-Social support -> helps individuals not conform when in presence with an ally
-Task difficulty -> more hard = more likely to conform (ISI)

95
Q

Dispositional factors that affect conformity

A

Dispositional factors that affect conformity:
-Gender (discredited)
-Experience + expertise

96
Q

Milgrams variations to investigate situational factors that influence obedience

A

Milgrams variations to investigate situational factors that influence obedience:
-Proximity = participant + learner in the same room -> obedience dropped -> can see the effect of their actions
-Allies -> ally who resisted obedience reduced obedience of participant
-Proximity of authority ->removed the experiment -> obedience reduced due ot having no source of visible authority
-Location = originally in yale, moved to run-down office, reduced obedience as location is ‘less credible’
-Uniform = no lab coat - less conformity

97
Q

Factors that kept individuals in the agentic state

A

Factors that kept individuals in the agentic state:
-Reluctance to drisrupt the experiment
-Pressure of surroundings
-Pressure of authority

98
Q

Ways people decide if authority is legitimate

A

Ways people decide if authority is legitimate:
-Legal process
-Knowledge/experience
-Social norms

99
Q

Moscovici (1969) evaluation:

A

Moscovici (1969) evaluation::
-Lacked realism -> lacks ecological validity
-Unethical -> decieved participants
-Most of the research on minority influence is based on experiments conducted in laboratories. This raises the question of ecological validity.
-Also, Moscovici (1969) used only female students as participants (i.e., an unrepresentative sample ), so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people

100
Q

What is the snowball effect?

A

Snowball effect: people agree with minority -> minority exerts influence -> majority starts to agree with minority so that viewpoint is now dominant

101
Q

Supporting research of LOC

A

Supporting research of LOC:
-Milgrams shock study
-Spector (1983) - used rotters locus of control scale - found a correlations but only in situations of NSI

A-Level Psychology 🌷 (9 decks)

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