Social influence

Question 1

what is social influence?

Answer 1

• trying to understand how our behaviour is affected by others

Question 2

what are the 3 types of social influence & explain them?

Answer 2

Conformity; going along with the majority group which causes a change in attitudes and behaviour (eg. peer pressure)

Obedience; doing what your told to do by authority (doing what your teacher told you to do)

Minority Influence; majority being persuaded by minority to accept minority views/beliefs (LGBT movement, same sex marriage is now legal)`

Question 3

Explanations of conformity - What is normative social influence?

Answer 3

• conform in order to fit in or gain approval or avoid disapproval from other group members

Question 4

Explanations of conformity- What is informational social influence?

Answer 4

• people conform as they are uncertain what to do in a particular situation, so look to others for guidance who they believe are ‘more educated’ within the situation. It’s the desire to be right, this leads to internalisation.

Question 5

What are the 3 types of conformity & explain them?

Answer 5

Compliance; caused by the desire to fit in (NSI), it’s a public change of behaviour (not private) and only temporary whilst with majority group

Identification; adopt a opinion/behaviour associated with a specific social group, happens because we want to be associated with majority group, private and public change. As it’s linked to a SPECEFIC group, we may change depending on who we are with = temporary

Internalisation; usually a result of believing the majority is right so align beliefs with them (ISI). Public and private change as take on views of majority, leads to permanent change.

Question 6

Evaluation of explanations of conformity.

Answer 6

strength; Research support for NSI. Linkenback found that adolescents won’t smoke if the majority group doesn’t. TMB, it shows that people will conform to the majority due to wanting to fit in or out of fear of rejection which is supported by NSI. Thus strengthening NSI as an explanation of conformity.

strength; Research support for ISI. Lucas found that students conform to the majority group on harder maths questions than they do easier ones. TMB it shows that people are more likely to conform in ambiguous situations when they don’t know what the right thing to do is. Thus strengthening ISI as an explanation of conformity.

limitation; NSI & ISI are not different from one another. Deustch found that in most lab experiments we conform either due to NSI or ISI. However, this is not the case in most real life situations, we often conform due to both reasons. TMB it suggests that research in this area does not reflect the real world meaning that it lacks ecological validity, thus limiting the explanations of conformity.

Question 7

KEY STUDY; Asch line study (1956), variables affecting conformity (aims, procedures, findings, conclusions)

Answer 7

AIM; to investigate whether people will conform when there is clearly a right & wrong answer.

PROCEDURE;
- 123 male American ptp’s in volunteer sample
- sat in groups of 6-9 (all other were confederates)
- 18 trials in total, 12 were critical
- used a control group (less than 1% made mistakes in control group)
-assess length of line and choose matching 1 out of the 3

FIDNINGS;
- 75% conformed on at least one of the 12 trials
- 25% never conformed
- 5% conformed on every single trial
- 36% overall conformity rate

Question 8

KEY STUDY; Asch line study (1956), variables affecting conformity - in the debrief, what were the ptp’s reasons for conforming?

Answer 8

distortion of judgement- were doubtful of own judgement (ISI)

distortion of action- most ptp’s thought differently privately from the group, changed their answers to avoid disapproval (NSI) & (compliance)

Question 9

KEY STUDY; Asch line study (1956), variables affecting conformity. What were the variations and the findings

Answer 9

Group size - low conformity for 1-2 confederates, conformity increased to 35% when there were 3 confederates

Task difficulty - harder the task, increased conformity

Unanimity - 1 dissenter giving correct answer, conformity dropped to 5%

Question 10

Evaluation of Asch’s study.

Answer 10

strength; provides empirical evidence for ISI. In Asch’s debrief ptp’s stated the reason they conformed was due to them being unsure of their judgement and their fear of being wrong. TMB, it supports the idea that people have a fear of social rejection and have a desire to be correct just as ISI suggests. Thus strengthening Asch’s study as a way of supporting explanations of conformity.

limitation; criticised for being a child of it’s time. Perrin replicated Asch’s study and found that only one ptp conformed out of 386 trials. TMB it suggests that conformity to social norms is no longer a big social influence and that people feel as though they are more able to be individuals as society norms have changed since then. Therefore it can be argued that Asch’s research lacks temporal validity, thus limiting Asch’s study of conformity.

limitation; it suffers from gender bias. For example, Asch only used male students and no female ones, this is an example of gender bias as factors affecting conformity were not tested on women. TMB, we cannot generalise his findings to females as we do not know if they act the same way to conformity as it was not tested on them. Thus limiting the usefulness of Asch’s study of conformity.

limitation; there is cultural differences in conformity. Smith found that conformity rates in a collectivist culture was 36% but only 25% in an individualistic culture. TMB, it shows that conformity is dependent on culture and therefore Asch’s findings cannot be applied to everyone, causing the study to lack generalisability. Limiting Asch’s study of conformity.

Question 11

What are social roles?

Answer 11

• assigned stereotypical roles within society & knowing how to behave and adhere to them
• the parts people play as members of social groups and the expectations that come with this

Question 12

What was Zimbardo investigating?

Answer 12

• conformity to social roles
• wanted to test whether conformity was situational (due to env factors) or dispositional (due to biological factors)

Question 13

KEY STUDY; Zimbardo’s Stamford prison experiment, conformity to social roles (aims, procedures, findings, conclusions)

Answer 13

AIM; to investigate the extent to which people would conform to their roles within the prison

PROCEDURE;
- 24 male students (selected from volunteer sample)
- considered mentally and physically well, free from anti-social and criminal tendencies
- random allocation = 10 guards, 11 prisoners
- Zimbardo played as the superintendent
- prisoners dehumanised (took from houses etc.)
- guards wore uniform and carried weapons
- research planned to run for 2 weeks
- mock prison built

• by day 2, someone had asked to leave, denied exit (began to show severe signs of distress)
• by day 4 a hunger strike had begun
• by day 5, 4 prisoners had a mental break down and left
• day 6 study ended

FINDINGS;
- both parties settled into their roles quickly
- in post experiment interviews, both guards and prisons were surprised by their uncharacteristic behaviours they had shown

CONCLUSIONS;
- conformity to social roles were because of situational factors rather than dispositional as none of them had displayed characteristics like that prior to the study (roles only existed whilst they were in prison env)

Question 14

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study.

Answer 14

strength; the findings have real world applications. The conclusions that Zimbardo drew on could be used to explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers during WWII, they may have acted in violence due to the situation they were in rather than them having these characteristics themselves (dispositional). Consequently, using this knowledge psychologists may be able to train soldiers, police officers etc. to act individually and educate them of the dangers of behaving how they think they are expected to. Thus strengthening Zimbardo’s study to help understand human behaviour.

limitation; Research challenging it. Reicher (2006), conducted a modern day Stamford prison experiment in the BBC. He found that prisoners did not conform straight away and challenged the authority, leading to the guards being reluctant to implement their authority. TMB, the behaviour of the guards in the SPE was very dominating and authoritarian, therefore challenging Zimbardo’s findings that conformity to social roles is situational rather than dispositional. Thus limiting Zimbardo’s study.

limitation; ethical issues. Zimbardo had to release 5 ptps early due to extreme distress. TMB, it is a psychologists responsibility that their ptps do not face physical or mental harm during an experiment. This makes it unlikely that the study would be allowed to be carried out today, thus limiting the reliability as it would not be able to be replicated. Therefore limiting Zimbardo’s study due to the neg effect of ethical implications.

limitation; ptps displayed demand characteristics. Banuazizi argued this. This reduces the validity of the findings as ptps were displaying inauthentic behaviour as they were aware that they were being observed and playing a role. This suggests that the original study wasn’t measuring what it set out to. Thus decreasing the validity of Zimbardo’s study.

Question 15

What is obedience?

Answer 15

• type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order usually has authority.

Question 16

KEY STUDY; Milgram’s shock experiment, obedience of authority figures (aims, procedures, findings, conclusions)

Answer 16

AIM; to see if people obey even if it goes against own morality

PROCEDURE;
- 40 males from volunteer sample
- 2 confederates (learner & experimenter)
- always rigged to have confederate as learner
- learner memorised word, teacher tested
- teacher had to give shock every time learner got it wrong (15V-450V)
- pounded on wall at 300V, no response thereafter
- verbal prompts if teacher wanted to stop (eg. you must continue)

FINDINGS;
- no one went below 300V
- 65% went all the way to 450V

CONCLUSION;
- people obey even if it goes against their own morality

Question 17

Obedience- Milgram’s shock experiment variations.

Answer 17

PROXIMITY
- touch proximity = 30%
- teacher & learner in same room = 40%
- experimenter over the phone = 21%

LOCATION
- run down building = 48%

UNIFORM
- no lab coat = decrease in obedience

DISOBIDENET CONFED
= decreased to 10%

Question 18

Evaluation of Milgram’s study.

Answer 18

strength; has temporal validity. Borger (2009), replicated Milgram’s experiment and found nearly identical levels of obedience. TMB, shows that obedience is a strong social influence in real life and applies just as much today as it did when Milgram first conducted his study. Thus validating Milgram’s conclusions.

strength; research support. Hopling (2006), carried out a field experiment in which nurses were called by an ‘unknown doctor’ and asked to increase a patients medication level. 21/22 nurses were willing to obey. TMB, this particular study has high ecological validity and therefore shows obedience is a strong social influence in a real life context. Thus validating Milgram’s findings.

limitation; Been criticised for lacking internal validity. Orne stated that the task they were given was too unrealistic and it was most likely that the ptp’s knew that they were not harming anyone and therefore went along with the study. TMB, it suggests that obedience was not actually being measured but that the ptps behaviour in the study were due to demand characteristics. Thus reducing the validity of the study.

Question 19

Situational variables effecting obedience (uniform - Bushman study)

Answer 19

BUSHMAN (1988)
- researcher stops ptps in street asking for change for a parking ticket dressing in police, business or beggar
- 72% obey police
- 48% obey business
- 52% obey beggar
*uniform conveys authority

Question 20

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority (social-psychological explanation of obedience) - agentic theory

Answer 20

• when we act as the agent (representative) of someone in authority we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions - blame actions on authority.

Question 21

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority (social-psychological explanation of obedience) - autonomous & agentic state & binding factor

Answer 21

autonomous state; we direct our own behaviour and take responsibility for consequences

agentic state; pass over blame, allow others to direct behaviour

autonomous to agentic = agentic shift

binding factors; aspects of a situation which allows a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour (eg. the way they justify carrying out an order)

Question 22

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority (social-psychological explanation of obedience) - Legitimacy of authority (what is it?)

Answer 22

• authority is justified by a persons position in the social hierarchy
  (3 key criteria to asses legitimacy of authority)

Question 23

Agentic state and legitimacy of authority (social-psychological explanation of obedience) - Legitimacy of authority, key criteria - KELMAN & HAMILTON (1989)

Answer 23

• legitimacy of the system
• legitimacy of authority within the system
• legitimacy of demands/orders given

1) - whether the authority is part of a recognised system in society (eg. army, government, police, school etc.)

2) - whether the person has higher authority than us within the syste, hierarchy. (eg. teacher in school)

3) order provided is to be a legitimate area for the authority figure (eg. teacher can tell you off for not doing work but cannot tell you to wash their car) *location and uniform have direct links

Question 24

What is destructive authority?

Answer 24

• those in legitimate authoritative positions use power for destructive purposes (like Hitler)

Question 25

Evaluation for agentic state/legitimacy of authority.

Answer 25

strength; research support. Blass & Schmidtt, showed students the Milgram study and asked who they thought who’s fault it was and they all said the experimenter showing that people on the outside believe it can still be authorities who hold the blame even though it was the teacher ‘physically’ harming the learner. TMB, it shows that the legitimacy of authority is a reasonable influence of obedience as stated by the agentic state. Thus validating the agentic state as an explanation of obedience.

strength; legitimacy of authority has real life applications. Tarnow (2000), studied US national transportation safety board data on all aircraft accidents between 1978-1990, with access to the black box he found that co-pilots (lower authority) relied highly on the captains expertise (higher authority). TMB, it shows that those with less authority obey those with the most legit authority in a real life situation. Thus validating legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.

limitation; agentic state explanation may not always explain real life obedience. Lifton found doctors working in Auschwitz gradually and irreversibly changed from normal drs. to those who tortured and killed prisoners. This shows that the shift between agentic and autonomous state is not as Milgram described, instead it leads to more permanent change. Thus reducing the validity of the agentic state as an explanation of obedience.

limitation; one issue with the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it could be used as a basis to justify the behaviour of destructive authority. For example, Hitler abused his power of authority in WWII when he created camps to brutally murder millions of Jewish people. TMB, although the legitimate of authority explanation has many positive outcomes, it also provides evidence to explain how legitimate authorities can abuse power and use it as an excuse. Therefore, this explanation has ethical and social implications which can be negative for society.

Question 26

Dispositional explanations of obedience- Authoritarian personality

Answer 26

ADORNO (1950)
- individuals personality determines how obedient they are and if they are prejudiced

Authoritarian personality characteristics;
- highly obedient to those in authority
- submissive to those of a higher status
- dismissive to those inferior

PROCEDURE;
- measured 2000 white American’s for their attitudes towards other racial groups
- developed and used F-scale to measure authoritarian personality

FINDINGS;
- AP; identified with strong, pitied weak, aware of social status, extreme respect to those higher, driven by stereotypes and prejudice

• may be due to strict and punitive punishments from parents
• creates hostile and despair in child

Question 27

Process of gaining an authoritarian personality.

Answer 27

1) harsh and punitive upbringing (little love, lots of punishment)
2) Fear of parents = 3) respectful to authority
OR
Hatred of parents = 3) hate & anger displaced onto others

Question 28

Authoritarian personality - Elm’s & Milgram

Answer 28

• 20 obedient & 20 defiant ptp’s from prev study
• done MMPI (measuring a range of personality variables) & F-scale to specifically measure levels of authoritarianism
• asked open ended questions (eg. questions about relationships with parents in childhood and attitude towards learner and experimenter in prev study)
• FINDINGS;
• little difference between defiant & obedient on MMPI
• increase levels of authoritarianism in obedient ptps
• obedient ptps less close to father & described them in neg terms
• obedient saw authority in Milgram’s study as admirable and the learners less so

Question 29

What is right wing authoritarianism?

Answer 29

• F-scale replaced by FWA
• developed by Altemeyer (1981)
• key characteristics are in line with F-scale

Question 30

Evaluation of authoritarian personality.

Answer 30

strength; research support. D&V study (replication of Milgram) showed that even when ptp’s knew experiment was fake they still acted as though it was real which showed a clear & significant correlation between ptps F-scale score and max voltage administered. TMB, shows ptp’s who scored high on F-scale was classed as authoritarian displayed high obedience levels. Which supports AP. Increasing validity of AP as an explanation of obedience.

strength; research support for political attitudes determining influence in obedience. Begue replicated Milgram’s study as a fake game show. Found ptp’s who labelled themselves as more ‘left-wing’ were the least obedient. TMB, right-wing views have been linked to high authoritarianism. This study supports that people with these personality traits are more likely to obey, whereas those with left-wing views are less likely to blindly follow orders. Thus this supports that RWA is a key factor in obedience levels.

limitation; contradictory evidence. Milgram moved his experiment from a lab to a run down office and obedience dropped from 65% to 48%. TMB, clearly shows a link between social context of orders being given to levels of obedience. The change in obedience is due to situational factors (env) rather than dispositional factors, suggesting there are other explanations of obedience. Thus challenging authoritarian personality explanation of obedience.

limitation; individual differences, education level may determine levels of obedience. Meloen found that less educated people where more authoritative and obedient compared to higher educated people. TMB, suggests that instead of authoritarianism causing obedience it was a lack of education. Although he tried to control this, it still had an effect which was reflected in the results. Thus limiting authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience.

Question 31

What is resistance to social influence?

Answer 31

• ability of people to go against the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority

Question 32

Social support to resisting social influence (include examples).

Answer 32

• people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same

conformity- reduced by a dissenting peer (reduces because peer pressure is reduced) – shown in Asch’s variations (dropped to 5% conformity)
*social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority and makes it easier to not conform

obedience- reduced by another dissenting partner, causes person to act consciously (autonomous) – Milgram’s variations (obedience dropped from 65% to 10%)
* social support means we are more confident in resisting orders if we can find an ally who is willing to join us

Question 33

What is locus of control?

Answer 33

refers to the sense we have about what directs our lives
(internal & external)

internal; less likely to feel peer pressure due to self assurance - less need for social acceptance (more likely to resist SI due to being able to act independently)

external; doesn’t take responsibility, desire to be liked, believes that things happen without their control

Question 34

Evaluation for resistance to social influence (social support & locus of control)

Answer 34

SOCIAL SUPPORT
strength; research support. Allen found that
independence increased with just one dissenter in an Asch type study. TMB, shows that just having one ally is enough for someone to be free of the pressure from the group and resist. Thus supporting social support as a way to resist social influence.

strength; further evidence into the role of social support. Rees & Wallace, found higher levels of drinking in teens with friends who also drink. However, they also found that if they had one or two friends who didn’t drink they were also less likely to drink themselves. TMB, shows that social support is linked to greater resistance and makes it easier to go against peer pressure. Thus supporting the role of social support in resisting SI.

LOCUS OF CONTROL
strength; research support. Speuer found ptp’s were more likely to conform due to NSI if they were external. TMB, supports the link between internal LOC and resistance to SI as those with external LOC were less likely to conform. However they found that this was only the case with NSI not ISI.

limitation; contradicting evidence. Twenge analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period. The data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but more external. This therefore challenges the link between internal LOC and resistance as people with external LOC have been more resistant to SI. Thus limiting the role of LOC in resisting SI.

Question 35

What is minority influence?

Answer 35

• a form of SI in which a minority persuade others to adopt their beliefs/attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation in which we permanently change our view.

Question 36

What are the 3 processes in minority influence & explain them.

Answer 36

CONSISTENCY
synchronic consistency; consistency between people of the minority group (they are all saying the same thing)

diachronic consistency; consistency over time (been saying the same thing for a long time)

COMMITMENT
- minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their view, needs to be risky in someway to show that they are committed to their view (referred to as augmentation principle)

FLEXIBILITY
- ability to compromise and not be too rigid in their views
- most likely need to negotiate their views
NEMETH
- found that when the minority did not change their low offer, majority stuck together with a high offer
- when minority displayed flexibility and started negotiating, majority started to show leniency and change their ‘views’.

Question 37

Moscovici (1969) ‘blue green slide study’

Answer 37

PROCEDURE;
- 172 (female) tested to ensure not colour blind
- groups of 6 (4 real, 2 confed)
- ptps asked to state colour of slides (36)
- all slides were diff shades of blue
*condit A- confed’s consistent and called all slides green
*condit B- confed’s inconsistent and called 2/3 green

FINDINGS;
- control group (no confed’s) - 0.25% said green
- consistent group - 32% said green on at least 1 slide
- inconsistent group - said green in 1.25% of trials

CONCLUSION;
- minority can influence majority, influence is strongest when consistent

Question 38

What is the snowball effect?

Answer 38

• once the minority viewpoint has got the attention of some of the majority group members, more and more people begin paying attention and the minority viewpoint gathers
  momentum, much like a snowball growing in size when rolling down a hill

Question 39

Evaluation of minority influence.

Answer 39

strength; research support to show importance of flexibility in minority influences. Nemeth, asked groups to discuss compensation for accidents, used confed’s to give minority opinion. Found confed’s who negotiated more and showed flexibility had more influence on the majority. TMB, it demonstrates that a minority group is more likely to be successful when flexible, thus demonstrating the importance of being flexible in minority influence.

strength; snowball effect has research support. Xie found that 10% of committed opinion holders was needed to tip majority to minority view. TMB, it supports that once enough of the majority join minority then there is a snowball effect leading to social change. Supporting minority influence explanation.

limitation; Moscivici’s study suffers from gender bias. He used 172 female ptp’s. TMB, we are unable to generalise and apply his findings to other populations, thus limiting our understanding of minority influence in the male population.

limitation; ethical issues in Moscovici’s study. Moscovici told ptp’s they took part in a colour perception test when it was actually on minority influence. TMB, he did not fully gain consent (he used deception to achieve his results) HOWEVER, he would not have achieved valid results if he had not used deception as demand characteristics would’ve been at play. Thus limiting the ethicalness of his study of minority influence.

limitation; methodological issues of Moscovici’s study. He performed an artificial task so it lacked mundane realism as the task wouldn’t occur in the real world. TMB it lacks external validity so the results aren’t useful to real life minority influences. Limiting validity of the study.

Question 40

What is social change?

Answer 40

• widespread change in attitudes, beliefs, expectations and behaviour which leads to a change of the normal.

Question 41

6 steps to making social change happen.

Answer 41

1) drawing attention; bold action that makes majority notice minority

2) consistency; over time and within the minority (everyone stays on the same message)

3) deeper processing; majority start to think about the views of the minority

4) augmentation principle; minority takes a risk for the cause (commitment)

5) snowball effect; minority becomes widespread as more people endorse them

6) social crypto amnesia; minority view has become majority, society cannot remember how it was before

Question 42

What are social norms intervention?

Answer 42

• this means government can implement social campaigns to influence people to join perceived majority group

Question 43

Evaluation of social change.

Answer 43

strength; research support from NSI. Linkenback found adolescents won’t smoke if the majority doesn’t. Social change is caused by conformity due to NSI. When a pressure is placed on a group that there is perceived majority group, conformity is more likely to occur and therefore, for example, social media, can cause conformity through messages giving perceptions of social change as minority have fear of disapproval.

strength; research support from obedience. Milgram found that 65% of ptp’s obeyed an order given even though it was causing someone else harm and going against their own morality. TMB, shows how powerful obedience is in changing people’s behaviour. This applies to social change as it supports the use that changes in the law can have on social change. Thus supporting the use of obedience in the process of social change.

strength; research support from conformity. NSI states that people conform to the majority group to either gain approval or avoid disapproval. This is evidenced by the debrief in Asch’s study of conformity where the ptp chose the wrong answer because the confederates did. TMB, it applies to social change as people will conform to different views to gain approval from others. Thus supporting the use of conformity in the process of social change.