social influence

Question 1

types of conformity: internalisation

Answer 1

long lasting -
when you accept the group norms
private and public change of opinions / behaviour
persists even in the absence of the group

Question 2

types of conformity: identification

Answer 2

short term change of behaviour ONLY in the PRESENCE of a group eg acting more professional at work

Question 3

types of conformity: compliance
(what level of conformity and why is it likely to occur)

Answer 3

temporary - go along with the group to gain their approval. you publicly agree but privately disagree (lowest level of conformity)
likely to occur as a result of normative social influence

Question 4

explanation of social influence: informational social influence

Answer 4

cognitive - they want to be right, they look to others to have the right answer in a situation
usually leads to internalisation and occurs when we don’t have the knowledge or expertise to make our own decisions.

Question 5

explanation of social influence: normative social influence

Answer 5

the emotional need to be accepted from a group drives compliance, wants to avoid embarrassment of disagreeing with the majority
someone conforms because they want to be liked and part of a group

Question 6

variables for affecting conformity: group size

Answer 6

little conformity where majority is 1 or 2 people
majority of 3 people increased conformity by 30%
further increases didn’t increase conformity

Question 7

variables for affecting conformity: unanimity

Answer 7

breaking the groups consensus by one confederate dropped conformity fast

Question 8

variables for affecting conformity: task difficulty

Answer 8

conformity increased as task difficulty increases (supports ISI)

Question 9

conformity study - Jenness

Answer 9

101 psychology students estimated number of beans in a glass jar (ambiguous situation)
- split into groups of 3 for answering, but given another chance to individually estimate
- nearly all Ps changed their answer

females had a larger average change than males - gender bias

Question 10

evaluating conformity

Answer 10

• naffiliators (type of personality) want to relate to other people so are more likely to conform so NSI may not explain conformity in everyone
• difficult to distinguish between NSI and ISI, unanimous majority makes conformity more likely, is it because we want to fit in or we believe everyone knows something we don’t
  + real life application - better behaviours can be encouraged by implying other people do it eg signs saying hotel guests use fewer towels shows reduction in towel use

Question 11

evaluating Asch’s study using Perrin and Spencer’s study

Answer 11

• Perrin and Spencer’s study shows <1% conformity rate, Asch lacks temporal validity (america in the 50s, communism, mccarthyism so everyone conformed due to fear) his results are no longer true, the culture is different
  > however PandS study Ps were science and engineering students - already smart and one type of person, more involved in difficult tasks so may have more self efficacy (confidence) and be less likely to conform
  > in general conformity rates are low unless there is a cost to the person (P on probation with probation officers)

Question 12

evaluating Asch’s study

Answer 12

• ethical issues, deception, stress (protection from harm)
  + real life application eg juries in court (give people self efficacy)
• cultural bias, Smith and Bond found collectivist cultures show higher conformity than individualist like Asch’s study, may lack generalisability

Question 13

Asch’s study of conformity

Answer 13

123 american men in groups of 6, 1 participant, 5 confederates
- presented with 4 lines, 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines
- asked to state which was the same length as the standard line
- real P always answered last or second to last
- confederates give the same incorrect answer, see if P would agree

found: 36.8% conformed, 75% conformed at least once (in a control, only 1% gave incorrect answers. this eliminates eyesight/perception as an EV, increasing validity)

Question 14

Zimbardo prison study aim and method

Answer 14

aim: investigate to what extent people conform to social roles
- mock prison experiment (so you don’t get people who are already in that job, otherwise there’s no conformity)
- 24 male volunteers - students (gender bias, Z sees world through male perspective, however more reflective of prison)
- assessed for emotional stability (trying to be ethical)
- randomly allocated as guard or prisoner (reduces bias)
- given guard uniform/loose smock and prisoner number (clear distinction between roles)

Question 15

Zimbardo prison study findings

Answer 15

• guards conformed to role quickly - treating prisoners harshly, enforcing rules, punishments, humiliation, isolation
• prisoners rebelled, ripped off their numbers
• prisoners became subdued, depressed
• one prisoner released after psychological concerns
• two more released on day 4
• one prisoner went on hunger strike
• study had to be stopped after 6 days instead of intended 14

Question 16

Zimbardo prison study conclusion

Answer 16

social roles have a strong influence
this can explain problematic behaviours - soldiers in the holocaust and abu ghraib

Question 17

evaluating Zimbardo

Answer 17

• lack of ecological validity - not a real prison
• Zimbardo may have overstated conformity - 2/3rds of the guards were fair
  + good internal validity - random allocation to roles
• sample - gender bias and culture bias (individualist americans)
• investigator effects - Zimbardo was the prison warden

Question 18

Milgrams baseline study and findings and conc

Answer 18

aim: to investigate when a person would obey authority and go against their conscience
- Ps 40 males between 20-50 (gender, culture bias) volunteer sample (volunteer bias, type of person who wants to please)
administered shocks to the confederate victim (purposely made him a nice man) if they answered questions in a word game wrong
increase voltage by 15V with each wrong answer (called gradual commitment)
confederate had recordings of complaints eg my heart hurts (so that it’s standardised)
- 2/3rds of Ps administered highest voltage (450V) when encouraged to continue by man in white coat
- every P gave 300V (extreme intensity)
conc: ordinary people are extremely obedient to authority even to the extent of killing a human being
- all Ps were debriefed and a follow up questionnaire found 84% were glad to have participated

Question 19

Milgrams baseline study evaluation

Answer 19

• sample - lacks population validity, culture bias, gender bias (maybe women are more obedient)
• lab setting - lacks ecological validity
  + finds replicated in other cultures - external reliability

Question 20

Hofling et al 1966 study - obedience in real life setting

Answer 20

nurses telephoned by a Dr Smith and asked to give a drug to a patient
=> double the recommended amount and should not take orders over the phone

• 21/22 obeyed

+ supports Milgrams work and shows obedience does occur in real life

Question 21

explanation to resistance - locus of control (Rotter 1966)

Answer 21

measurement of the control someone has over their life
INTERNAL: more control, behaviour caused by own personal decisions + effort
EXTERNAL: less control, behaviour caused by luck/fate

internal often conform less, see themselves having more control over own decisions, make decisions based on their own moral code not someone else’s
external conform more, believe things are beyond their control, so would act on behalf of another, susceptible to obedience

Question 22

evaluation for locus of control

Answer 22

+ Holland 1967 replicated Milgrams study (electric shock) measured whether Ps were internal or external LOC
= 37% internals did not continue to highest shock, 23% externals, shows internal LOC showed greater resistance to authority

• 40 year longitudinal study showed contradictory evidence: although people became more resistant to social pressure over time, they also became more external, so internal LOC is not an explanation for resistance

Question 23

explanation to resistance - social support

Answer 23

how Asch found when there isn’t unanimity, conformity drops to 1/4 of what they were
the answer supports the Ps true answer, provides P with social support by providing alternate information,
gives more confidence in their own perception, often enough for P to reject the majority
(facilitated by ISI and NSI)

Question 24

evaluating social support

Answer 24

+ Teen fresh start USA: 8 week program for pregnant teens 14-19 to resist pressure to smoke. some provided with a mentor, and at the end those with a mentor were less likely to smoke than the control group. shows SS can help young people resist social influence
+ Gamson et al also gave support to the idea that larger groups provide a stronger social support system, which makes resisting obedience/social influence much easier. These researchers found that when participants where placed in groups, 88% resisted the pressure to conform to the same smear campaign which other confederates had developed. This also clearly demonstrates the significant influence of social support systems.

Question 25

what is minority influence

Answer 25

when a small group of people influence the beliefs and behaviour of majority group members
likely to involve ISI and lead to internalisation
needs to be Consistent, Committed and Flexible

Question 26

consistency

Answer 26

not altering viewpoint
- synchronic consistency - whole group says the same thing
- diachronic consistency - group says the same thing over a long time period

Question 27

commitment

Answer 27

live by guidelines they encourage others to live by

Question 28

flexibility

Answer 28

if a minority doesn’t consider any other options they will be less influential
must be willing to compromise

Question 29

minority influence study - Moscovici et al 1969

Question 30

augmentation principle

Question 31

evaluating Moscovici study

Question 32

social influence and social change: what is social change

Answer 32

occurs when the majority adapts new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things
- occurs continually but at a gradual pace
- minority viewpoints slowly become majority opinion
- sometimes +ve sometimes -ve

Question 33

each stage of social change

Answer 33

drawing attention

consistency

deeper processing

augmentation principle - risk taken by minority groups to show dedication

snowball effect - everyone converts

social cryptoamnesia - forgets how we all converted

(Don’t Come Deep in the ASS)

Question 34

conformity research to social change

Answer 34

NSI: conform due to what majority are doing, so draw attention to what majority is doing through posters etc

Question 35

obedience research to social change

Answer 35

Milgram showed gradual commitment makes obedience more likely, used to create social change
- people struggle to disobey if they have already obeyed other (smaller) orders = harder to disobey more extreme orders later

Question 36

social change study Nolan et al 2008

Answer 36

hung messages on front doors in California every week for a month
message said most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage
(control group had message just asking to reduce energy intake)
- decrease in energy consumption in experimental group => majority influence can lead to social change via NSI

Question 37

Milgram study: situational VARIABLES that he changed to effect obedience

Answer 37

47.5% obedience - LOCATION (if it wasn’t at yale uni) - prestigious settings give someone more authority so more likely to obey
20% obedience uniform (if experimenter wore normal clothes) - uniform symbolises authority, normal clothes drops obedience
40% obedience proximity (if learner and teacher were in same room) - obedience drops => can see the impact the shocks have
30% obedience proximity (teacher puts learners hand on electric shock plate)
20.5% obedience proximity (to authority figure) - obedience drops if authority figure is over the phone

Question 38

supporting Milgrams situational variables - Bickman 1974

Answer 38

3 male confederates dressed in either: normal clothes, as a milkman, or a security guard
asked passerby’s to do various tasks
Ps were twice as likely to obey security guard than normal clothes
- shows that authoritative uniform not just any uniform increases obedience

Question 39

evaluating Milgrams situational variables

Answer 39

• lack of internal validity: if Ps guess aim, they may display demand characteristics (eg when experimenter was replaced by ‘member of the public’)
  + controlled: one variable was manipulated at a time so there was high control
  does it make evil behaviour acceptable? - free will/determinism debate

Question 40

situational explanations for obedience: agentic state (+ evaluation from Milgram)

Answer 40

we are not responsible, lack autonomy, happens when we obey orders of an authority figure without thinking (happens when you see someone as above you)

agentic shift => being autonomous to being an agent

+ Milgrams Ps lacked responsibility, experimenter said he is responsible, so Ps carried on due to this
- Rank and Jacobson found only 2/18 nurses obeyed doctor, they still felt they were responsible for their actions even though lower authority

Question 41

situational explanations for obedience: legitimate authority (+ evaluation)

Answer 41

consciously obeying certain people because they have real authority (parents, teachers, police etc)
-above us in the social hierarchy, have power over us so can punish us

• doesn’t explain why some Ps didn’t obey - never a perfect explanation
  + good explanation of cultural differences in obedience (germany - 85% gave total shocks, australia - 16%)

Question 42

dispositional factors for obedience - authoritarian personality

Answer 42

personality type susceptible to obeying authority figures
extreme respect for authority, believe we need strong and powerful leaders
show contempt for people below them in the social hierarchy

formed in childhood due to harsh parenting - strict discipline, impossibly high standards, criticism
child experiences resentment but cannot express towards the parents so feelings are displaced onto those perceived as weaker

Question 43

evaluating authoritarian personality

Answer 43

• determinist, not everyone who grows up with strict parents are like this
• Elms and Milgram only show correlation not causation
• how does it explain when so many people display obedient behaviour (pre-war Germany and anti-semitic behaviour) as surely they did not all have the same personality type
• Milgrams situational variables show its not just personality types that cause obedience
• F scale methodology - lacks validity, response bias (if people are unsure they lean more towards agree)

Question 44

explaining Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al 1950 and Elms and Milgram for evaluation

Answer 44

over 2000 middle class americans did a questionnaire measuring unconscious attitudes toward religious and ethnic minority groups (the F scale)
those who showed an authoritarian personality had high levels of prejudice and showed contempt for the weak

+ Elms and Milgram studied obedient Ps and found they scored higher on the F scale and were less close to their fathers during childhood