social influence Flashcards
outline and evaluate explanations of conformity AO1
two-process theory of conformity (Deutsch and gerrard)
- NSI - to fit in
- change public due to worry
- most closely linked to compliance
-ISI - to be right
- change public and private attitudes/behaviour
- most often shown in ambiguous situations
- linked to internalisation > long-term change that remains
outline and evaluate explanations of conformity AO3
+ Lucas - ppts maths ability, Asch - conformed as self-conscious/disapproval > conform where they don’t feel they know the answer (ISI) or want to be right (ISI)
- individual differences affect conformity - need to be liked = more affected by NSI (nAffiliators) McGhee & Teevan > desire to be liked explains conformity in some
- overly simplistic as it states due to ISI or NSI - Asch conformity reduced when confederate said right answer, reduced NSI or ISI > not always possible to be sure which
outline and evaluate research into conformity AO1
Jenness - 101 male and female private estimations
- ambiguous so uncertain about previous responses + greater trust in group
- discussed answers in large group > group estimation
- 2nd private estimation > moved closer to groups (m= 790 > 695), female more likely to conform
- changed estimation as privately + publicly agreed (internalisation)
- explained by ISI
Asch - 123 American male - visual perception
- 7-9, only 1 genuine + faced screen and asked to judge which of 3 was same as standard line
- judgements verbally, real at the end
- unambiguous but confederates told wrong answer 12/18 trials > conformity rates recorded
- conformed in 36.8% trials, 5% in every, 75% in at least 1
- interviews after showed knew they were wrong but chose to fit in
- evidence for compliance and NSI
outline and evaluate research into conformity AO3
- (J) low ecological validity, decreasing external - highly controlled lab + judgement not similar to everyday > findings tell us little about conformity in real life
-(J) low population validity > 101 psych students so difficult to apply beyond small group
- (J) deception (misled about procedure) - couldn’t inform anticipated findings > modern BPS ethics committees likely to accept (Aronson)
- (A) may be due to demand characteristics - trivial task + artificial so no reason for not conforming + behave individually without direct interactions of groups in everyday life > little about conformity in situations where consequences are important & we interact with groups more directly
outline and evaluate research into obedience AO1
Milgram - 40 male ppts study concerning memory + learning
- greeted by experimenter in lab coat
- genuine paired with confederate - “randomly aligned to role”
- watched learner get strapped into electric chair + instructed to teach series of word pairs
- electric shock given when wrong, 15v + increasing
- sample shock, separate room
- learner gave set of predetermined responses, as shocks increased, more dramatic response (315v silent)
- if objected, verbal prompt
- 100% to 315v, 65% 450 (max) > strong levels of obedience to authority, even when instructions go against moral codes
Hofling - posed as Dr + phoned 22 nurses at hospitals
- ordered to administer 20mg Astrofen, dose double
- not real + nurses stopped
- test of obedience as nurses not meant to follow over phone + meant to question unusual doses
- 21/22 obeyed doctors > strong levels of obedience to authority in real life
outline and evaluate research into obedience AO3
- (M) low internal validity - Orne and Holland argued ppts guessed shocks were fake so not measuring obedience > interviews after 70% believed real
+ (M) artificial relationship between experimenter & teacher is no different to obedience in wider settings - procedure of ppt of lower status + authority figure. Hofling and Bickman support > although artificial, can be generalised
+ (H) high external validity due to high mundane realism > nurses ordered to administer dangerous dose in own working environment, making it easier to generalise to everyday
+ (H) high level control over variables - procedure can be easily replicated + consistently produces similar findings > script used in phone call + type of drug & prescription standardised
outline and evaluate explanations of obedience AO1
dispositional (internal explanation, caused by personality)
- incl. authoritarian personality
- specific set of personality characteristics > more hostile + conventional + strong respect for authority
- Adorno - those with strict parenting more likely to develop (F scale)
situational (external explanation, env)
- uniform: more likely (symbol of authority), inc social influence
- location: more in high status locations, high perceived authority
- proximity: more is authority close by, close enough to exert authority
social-psychological (neither D or S)
- agentic state (agent of authority figure) > give up free will & not responsible
- legitimacy of authority figure: more likely if person giving orders has high level of legitimate authority > increases social influence which people respect (fear of punishment)
outline and evaluate explanations of obedience AO3
+ (autho) most obedient in Milgram’s study are those who scored higher on F scale > obedience most likely in those due to strong respect for authority, valid explanation
+ (legitimacy) can explain real life obedience - Kelman and Hamilton My Lai massacre explained by US army authority > assumed orders were legal, even if barbaric > valid explanation
+ (proximity) Milgram, only 20.5% max shock if over the phone > obedience most likely when close as it gives sense he can exert authority > valid explanation
+ (agentic) Milgram, interviewed - didn’t feel responsible as working on experimenter’s behalf > “well you’re responsible” - carrying out someone else’s work
+ (uniform) Bickman - 92% obeyed order when in guard’s uniform, 49% in jacket & tie > uniform increases social influence
+ (location) Milgram 47.5% obeyed in run-down building over Yale > high status of setting adds authority
outline and evaluate explanations of resistance to social influence AO1
Rotter - locus of control (personality characteristic than influences whether people conform or obey or resist)
- measured w/questionnaire
- internal - control over actions, responsibility, confident + don’t seek social approval
- less likely to conform/obey as can resist
- external - external forces (luck), less confident, seek social approval
- more likely to conform or obey as less able to resist
social support - pressure to conform reduced
- dissenter allows person freedom > independent
- pressure to obey reduced if others present
- may not follow behaviour of individual not obeying but frees ppt to show individual
outline and evaluate explanations of resistance to social influence AO3
+ (L) Holland repeated Milgram + measured LOC, 37% internal didn’t, 23% didn’t > internal more resistant than those with external
- (L) role of LOC exaggerated, Rotter LOC only important in new situations, those who conformed/obeyed in specific situation previously more likely to do it again > only helpful in explaining resistance in small range of situations
+ (S) Asch conformity rates fell 5.5% from 36.8% when another confederate disagreed > confidence in own attitudes/behaviour so can resist
+ (S) Milgram obedience fell to 10% from 65% when paired genuine w/2 who didn’t obey > social support gave ppts confidence in own attitudes/behaviour to resist
outline and evaluate research into minority social influence AO1
can effectively influence if 3 behavioural characteristics
assume minority is incorrect/misguided: consistency
- always expresses same unchanged opinion over long period
- theyve been saying this for so long, maybe they have a point
if minority gives up easily, they won’t effectively influence majority: commitment
- persistence and determination without giving into pressure
- they must believe what theyre saying, perhaps i should consider
expresses opinion in firm, dogmatic way off-putting: flexibility
- reasonable and non-dogmatic by being open to other views
- they seem willing to discuss the issue, perhaps i could engage
outline and evaluate research into minority social influence AO3
+ (consistency) moscovici - study concerning visual perception, 36 blue slides & asked to state colour. Influenced by minority in 8.42% consistent trials, 1.25% inconsistent > minority can influence majority to change private attitudes or behaviour, particularly if consistent
+ (committment) Xie - tipping point of 10% of pop to convert majority - free to chat across networks (addition of small but committed minority) > commitment increases effect of MI
+ (flexibility) Nemeth - stimulated jury situation discuss compensation - influenced by minority willing to show compromise > flexibility increases effect of MI
