Social Influence

Question 1

conformity- Asch (1951) baseline procedure

Answer 1

aim- measure extent to which people conformed to the opinions of others, even knowing they were wrong.
findings-naive pps conformed 36.8% of time. Individual differences meant 25% never conformed. 75% conformed at least once.

Question 2

Conformity by Asch- Variable 1 (group size)

Answer 2

procedure- varied number of confeds between 1-15.
findings- With 2 confeds, conformity to wrong answer was 13.6% and with 3 it was 31.8%, anymore than this levelled off.
explanation- people very sensitive to opinions of others.

Question 3

Conformity by Asch- Variable 2 (unanimity)

Answer 3

procedure- Asch introduces a dissenter who always disagreed with the majority
findings- conformity was reduced to less than a quarter, whether dissenter gave right or wrong answer.
explanation- dissenter enables pps to behave independently.

Question 4

Conformity by Asch- Variable 3 (task difficulty)

Answer 4

procedure- Asch made task harder by making lines more similar in length
findings- conformity increased
explanation- situation became more ambiguous, so more likely to look to others for guidance, this is ISI.

Question 5

Types of conformity- internalisation

Answer 5

A person genuinely accepts group norms, results in public and private change. Change is usually permanent and persists in absence of group members e.g. a person who is vegetarian

Question 6

Types of conformity- identification

Answer 6

When we identify with a group we value, we want to become a part of it. So we publicly change opinions and behaviour even if we privately disagree e.g. supporting a football team when moving to a new city

Question 7

Types of conformity- compliance

Answer 7

Involves ‘going along with it’ in public but disagreeing in private. This only results in a superficial change and opinion stops when group pressure ceases e.g laughing at a joke you don’t find funny.

Question 8

Explanations for conformity- informational social influence

Answer 8

-About information and a desire to be right
-a cognitive process which generally leads to internalisation
-likely to occur in situations which are new or where there is ambiguity
-when decisions have to be made quickly, we assume group is right

Question 9

Explanations for conformity- normative social influence

Answer 9

-About norms, a desire to behave like others and not look foolish
-NSI is emotional rather than cognitive
-people want social approval and not to be rejected, leads to compliance
-may be in stressful situations where we look for social support

Question 10

Conformity to social roles- Zimabrdo (1973)- procedure

Answer 10

-mock prison in basement of stanford uni
-21 ‘emotionally stable’ male students randomly allocated role
-social roles encouraged by uniform (prisoners strip searched and given number and guards uniform glasses and handcuffs)
-Instructions (guards told they had complete control, prisoners told they had to ask for parole to leave)

Question 11

Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo (1973)- findings

Answer 11

-guards were enthusiastic and ALL guards were aggressive
-prisoners rebelled in 2 days
-guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and harassed prisoners
-after rebellion was put down prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed
-3 prisoners released early due to psychological disturbance
-hunger strike prisoner put in the hole
-lasted 6/14 days
-guards (brutal) prisoners (submissive)

Question 12

Obedience- Milgram (1963) baseline- procedure

Answer 12

-40 american males
-All assigned role of teacher
-Teacher gave increasing shocks to learner up to 450V, fake but labelled to look severe
-experimenter gave verbal prods if teacher wanted to stop

Question 13

‘prods’ by experimenter in milgrams study on obedience

Answer 13

1- ‘please continue’
2- ‘the experiment requires that you continue’
3- ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’
4- ‘you have no other choice you must go on’

Question 14

Obedience- Milgram 91963) baseline- findings

Answer 14

-12.5% stopped at 300V
-65% continued to 450V
-3 pps had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
-14 psychology students predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450
– we obey legit authority even if it causes others harm

Question 15

Obedience situational variables- proximity

Answer 15

-closeness of teacher and learner
-65%>40% in same room
-touch proximity > 30%
In remote instruction variation, experimenter given instructions by phone> 20.5%, pps even pretended to give shock
-decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences

Question 16

Obedience situational variables- location

Answer 16

-prestige of setting
-run down building> 47.5%
-obedience higher in uni as setting was legit and had authority

Question 17

Obedience situational variables- uniform

Answer 17

-communicates authority
-baseline wore grey lab coat
-ordinary member of public >20% (lowest of the variations)
-uniform is a strong symbol of legit authority, someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience

Question 18

Obedience: situational explanations- Agentic state

Answer 18

1. Agentic state= acting on behalf of another person and therefore feeling no responsibility for actions
2. Autonomous state= person acts independently and feels responsible
   -Agentic shift occurs when we perceive someone as an authority figure
   Bindings factors such as shifting responsibility to victim, reduce moral strain

Question 19

Obedience: situational explanations- legitimacy of authority

Answer 19

-we obey people further up the social hierarchy
-the power they wield is legit because it is agreed by society
-we learn to accept that they have control and give up some independence to them during childhood
-history has proven some abuse this authority

Question 20

Obedience: dispositional explanation- the authoritarian personality theory

Answer 20

• adorno et al (1950) believe that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder
  -These people have exaggerated respect for authority and are submissive to it, they also express contempt for inferiors
  -learnt in childhood through severe criticism
  -conditional love
  -Hostile feelings displaced on to social inferiors (psychodynamic explanation)

Question 21

Obedience: dispositional explanation- the authoritarian personality- baseline

Answer 21

procedure- investigated attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle class white Americans
-F scale 1-6 where 6 is strongly agree
findings- authoritarians who scored highly identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of ‘weak’
-excessive defence of high status people
-fixed and distinctive stereotypes (cognitive style)

Question 22

Resistance to social influence- explanation 1 social support

Answer 22

• pressure to conform is reduced if others do not conform, dissenter doesn’t have to be right
  -dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous
  -pressure to obey reduced if someone disobeys
  Milgrams research showed obedience dropped from 65 to 10 in disobedient peer condition
  -disobedient peer challenges legitimacy of authority

Question 23

Resistance to social influence - explanation 2 locus of control

Answer 23

-Rotter (1966)
-there is a continuum/scale
-internals (more likely to resist social pressures, they believe they control their lives, more confident and achievement oriented)
-externals (place control outside of themselves, more likely to conform)

Question 24

Minority influence

Answer 24

• leads to internalisation through 3 processes
  1. consistency- makes others rethink their own views by always doing same thing. Can be synchronic (minority all say same) or diachronic (say same thing for long time)
  2. commitment- showing deep involvement, possibly through extreme activities. Augmentation principle makes majority pay more attention.
  3. flexibility- willingness to listen to others . Nameth (1986) said being consistent is rigid and off putting.

Question 25

Lessons from minority influence research- drawing attention

Answer 25

-segregation in 1950s America, civil rights marches drew attention to places exclusive to whites by providing social proof of the issue

Question 26

Lessons from minority influence research- consistency

Answer 26

-Even though it was a minority taking part in marches, they displayed consistency of message and intent

Question 27

Lessons from minority influence research- deeper processing

Answer 27

-Activism meant many who had accepted the status quo began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it

Question 28

Lessons from minority influence research- augmentation principle

Answer 28

• ‘freedom riders’ were both white as well as black people who boarded buses in the south to challenge seperate seating for black, many were beaten
• The risk augmented (strengthened) their message

Question 29

Lessons from minority influence research- snowball effect

Answer 29

• Civil rights activists (e.g. Martin Luther King) gradually got the attention of the US government
  -In 1964 the civil rights act was passed
  -change happens bit by bit like rolling a snowball

Question 30

Lessons from minority influence research- social cryptomnesia

Answer 30

• social change came about but people have no memory of the events leading to the change

Question 31

Lessons from conformity research- dissenter

Answer 31

-dissenters make social change more likely, proven by Asch’s research
-breaks power of majority encouraging others, demonstrating potential for social change

Question 32

Lessons from conformity research- NSI

Answer 32

-environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI
-They provide info about what others are doing (‘bin it- others do’)

Question 33

Lessons from obedience research- disobedient models make change more likely

Answer 33

• Milgrams research: disobedient models in the variation where confed refused to give shock
• rate of obedience in genuine pps plummeted

Question 34

Lessons from obedience research- gradual commitment leads to drift

Answer 34

-Zimbardo (2007), once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes harder to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ in to new kinds of behaviour.