Social Influence Flashcards
social psychology:
-the study of how peoples behaviours and attitudes are influenced by the actual or imagined presence of other people
social group:
-a group of two or kore people who interact, share things in common and share a common identity
social norms:
-unwritten rules for tie social groups are expected to behave
social roles:
-behaviours and beliefs expected of someone in a particular position within a social group
private attitudes:
-are a persons genuine beliefs or feelings about something
public attitudes:
-are what people tell other they believe or feel
conformity:
-when a persons private or public attitude is influenced by the majority
compliance:
-when a person conforms publicly but not privately to be accepted by a group and avoid social rejection
-when a person conforms by compliance, the influence of the majority is short lived, so the compliance is a weak form of conformity
identification:
-is when a person confirms to be like a role model or social role that they admire
-when people confirm by identification, they conform privately as well as publicly
-but attitudes and behaviours are not long lasting and only kept while the role model is seen as desirable to imitate
-medium firm of conformity
internalisation:
-when a person conforms both privately and publicly because they are persuaded that the attitudes of the majority are correct
-long lasting as the new behaviours and attitudes persist even when the majority change their mind
-so internalisation is a strong form of conformity
situational variable that affect conformity:
-group size
-unanimity
-task difficulty
-if any of these variables increase, people will be more likely to conform
explanations for conformity: normative social influence
-is when people conform to be accepted and fit in
-this is likely to occur in situations where there is high social pressure
-results in compliance
informational social influence:
-is when people conform because they want to be correct and they believe the majority is correct
-this is likely to occur when uncertainty is high and social pressure is low
-usually conforming byinternalisation or identification but never compliance
Zimbardos prison study:
-investigated whether prison brutality happens cause of the personality of guards or because they are conforming to social roles
-he built a mock prison and collected a sample of 75 male students to participate in his study and randomly assigned them the roles of either guard or prisoner
-in his controlled and overt observation, Zimbardos pps conformed to the social roles of prisoners and guards
-the guards treated the prisoners brutally and the prisoners first tried to rebel but then became increasingly passive
-after 6 days, Zimbardo was forced to stop the experiment
evaluation of Zimbardos study:
-study was considered unethical as pps experienced stress with lasting consequences
-the finding may lack generalisability as only white, middle class male students were recruited for the experiment
-study was criticised for lacking ecological validity as pps might of not believed it was real and so may not have behaved as they would in the real world
-investigator effects may have biased the experiment as Zimbardos played the role of prison warden
Jenness jelly bean study:
-investigated why people conform by asking people to estimate how many jelly beans were in a big jar before and after a group discussion
-Jenness found that people’s estimates conformed to group estimates after group discussion, even though the group was no longer present
-he concluded that people were conforming by internalisation because they were uncertain and thought the group estimates were correct
-so, this supports the explanation that people conform due to informational social influence
evaluation of Jennes jelly bean study:
-normative social influence might also have influenced behaviour
-study doesn’t tell us much about conformity in non-ambiguous situations
the Asch experiment:
-asch investigated whether people will conform with the majority when the majority is obviously wrong
-he asked pps in the experimental group to judge line lengths in the presence of confederates who gave the wrong answer
-he checked that the answers were really easy by having a control group who jus had to give answers privately
-asch found that pps did confirm and give the wrong answer
-75% conformed at-least once, and there was a 32% conformity rate overall
-this pps didn’t seem to be giving the wrong answer because they didn’t know the answer as the control group had a 0.04% error rate
asch additional experiment:
-later, conducted 3 similar experiments where he varied the unanimity, group size and task difficulty
-asch found that when he reduced the unanimity by having one confederates who disagreed with the majority, conformity decreased
-when he increased group size, conformity increases
-when he increased task difficulty, conformity increased
evaluation of Asch experiment:
-lack ecological validity as it was a laboratory study, but because it was a lab study, he was able to establish a cause and effect relationship between the presence of a majority that gave incorrect answers and pps giving the wrong answer
-study may have suffered from demand characteristics as pps might have realised the confederates were lying and so deliberately got the answer wrong, but post study interviews suggested the pps did think the confederates were real pps
obedience:
-when a person obeys someone they feel has authority over them
situational variables affecting obedience:
proximity of authority figure- if authority figure is close people are more likely to obey
proximity of victim-if a victim is closer, people will he less likely to obey orders to harm the victim as they have to observer the consequences of their actions
location-in locations that carry authority, people are more likely to obey
uniforms-if authority figure is wearing a uniform, people are more likely to obey
explanations of obedience: legitimacy of authority
-says that from a young age we learn to obey people who are higher up in the social hierarchy
explanations of obedience: agency theory(Milgram)
-says that when people obey the orders of a legitimate authority figure, they shift responsibility for the consequences of their actions away from themselves to the authority figure
-so they make an agentic shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state
explanations of obedience: authoritarian personality
-says that some people are more likely to obey due to their authoritarian personality which makes them overly respectful of authority
Milgram experiment:
-investigated if ordinary people would obey an authority figure even when the orders were unjust
-40 male volunteers were told they were participating in a learning and memory study, however the study was actually about obedience
-pps we’re introduced to a confederate called Mr.Wallace whi they believed was another pps
-in a memory task pps we’re assigned the role of teachers and we’re instructed to give Mr.Wallace(the learner) electrical shocks with increasing strength when he got an answer wrong
-as the shock level was increased Mr.Wallace’s pre recorded scream would become louder and at 330v he would become silent
-meanwhile the experimenter in the room with the pps encouraged them to keep administering the shocks
-65% of pps administered the maximum shock of 450v and all pps went up until 300v
Milgrams additional experiment:
-conducted 4 additional experiments to test how situational variables influence obedience
-he found that people were more likely to obey when they were closer to the authority figure, further away from the victim, when there were tested in a locations that carried authority and when the researchers wore a uniform
Milgrams study: strengths
-relied on laboratory experiments, this means he had control over extraneous variables and more easily established a cause and effect relationship
milgrams study: weaknesses
-might suffer from demand characteristics as the pps may have realised that the shocks weren’t real
-study may also lack ecological validity as the experimental situation was very different to everyday life obedience
-lacks population validity because the ppd were all white, male and american
-could be considered unethical, as pps were deceived and couldn’t give informed consent, they could also have experienced psychological harm and might of thought they couldn’t withdraw
evaluating the legitimacy of authority:
strengths:
-milgrams findings on the effect of uniforms show that people were more likely to obey when the researcher was wearing a lab coat, indicating legitimate authority
-milgrams fundings about the effect of location showed that people were more likely to obey in the location of a university where the researchers authority appeared more legitimate
weakness:
-however, a weakness of the legitimacy of authority theory is that it ignored individual variables that might also affect obedience, like personality
evaluating agency theory: strengths
-pps we’re more likely to obey when the researcher took responsibility for their actions, this supports the prediction that when people act on behalf of an authority figure, they adopt the agentic state
-pps we’re more likely to obey when they were further away from the victim, making it easier to ignore the consequences of their actions and stay in the agentic state
weakness of agency theory;
-however, agency theory ignores individual variables that affect obedience
evaluating authoritarian personality theory:
-milgram found that some people are more likely to obey than others indicating that there are individual variables that affect obedience
-just because authoritarian personality traits correlate with someones obedience , doesn’t mean they cause obedience
-this theory can’t account for the affect of situational variables on obedience
resistance to social influence: social support
-if a person feels like they have social support, they will be more likely to resist social influence
-this idea is supported by milgrams and Aschs findings which show that when one confederate disobeyed, resistance to social influence was greater
resistance to social influence: locus of control
-is the extent to which a person thinks they have control over events in their life
-this can be measured through a questionnaire developed by rutter
-if someone thinks they have control over events in their life, they have internal locus of control
-but if someone thinks they don’t have control over events in their life, they have an external locus of control
-people with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist social influence
evidence for locus of control:
SHUTE:
-found support for the effect of locus of control on resistance to social influence
-pps filled in rutters questionnaire and they measured how much their attitudes could be influenced by other people
-results showed that people with an internal locus of control conform less in situations that produce normative social influence
minority influence:
-when a minority changes the attitudes and behaviours of the majority through a process called conversion
3 stages of conversion:
1) conflict-minority creates conflict and people take notice
2) understanding-people try to understand the minority’s position
3) persuasion- majority are persuaded by the validity of the minorities attitudes
ways of strengthening minority influence:
consistency- by having attitudes that are constant over time and and everyone in the group holds
commitment- by caring strongly enough about their attitudes to risk punishment and dissapointment
flexibility- by listening to and understanding other people POV and being willing to compromise
social change:
-when minorities change the structures and behaviour of society so that new social norms are created
minorities and social change:
-minorities create social change through slowly converting people to their position and as more people convert, the influence of the majority gets bigger causing people to convert at a faster rate, until the minority becomes the majority. this is called the snowball effect
social cryptomnesia:
-describes the effect whereby people forget how the new social norms were adopted and who they came from
Moscivici:
-investigated whether the minority could influence the attitudes of a majority in a ambiguous task where the answer was clear
-pps we’re asked to judge the colour of blue slides in the presence of the minority who gave the wrong answer in a consistent and inconsistent condition
-he found that when the minority were consistent, people agreed with the minority 8.2% of the time
-he concluded that, although not huge, minorities can influence the attitudes of a majority when they are consistent
Nemeth:
-performed additional variations of moscovicis experiment and found that people were more likely to agree with a flexible minority than an inflexible z minority
evaluation of moscovicis experiment:
-lacked generalisability due to low population validity
-it lacked ecological validity because it was a laboratory experiment
-the study may have been unethical because it used deception which might have caused stress
