Social Influence

Question 1

conformity definition

Answer 1

The tendency for a person to change their behaviour and/ or beliefs in response to pressure from other people in a group

Question 2

Compliance (conformity)

Answer 2

When individual changes their public appearance to match those of a group - short term

Question 3

identification (conformity)

Answer 3

changing public views to match those of a group that you wish to be a part of. usually different to your private authentic views

Question 4

internalisation (conformity)

Answer 4

changing your public and private views or behaviour to match those of a group - but genuinely changing your mind

Question 5

Asch (1951; 1956) procedure

Answer 5

• Tested conformity by showing Pts 2 large cards at a time. One had standard line on it and other had 3 comparison lines on it (one of 3 lines was same length as standard line - others all substantially different)
• Each Pt (123 male undergraduates through opportunity sampling) was tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates
• On first few trials, confeds gave the right answers - 12/18 of trials were “critical” (meaning confeds gave wrong answers)

Question 6

Asch (1951; 1956) RESULTS (3 statistics, one interview statement post study)

Answer 6

• Naive apt gave wrong answer 36.8% of time
• 25% of Pts didn’t conform on any trials
• 75% of Pts conformed at least once
• when interviewed afterwards, many Pts said they conformed to avoid rejection

Question 7

variables affecting conformity (3)

Answer 7

1) difficulty of task - pts conformed more when maths problems were difficult as they were more ambiguous (Lucas 2006)
2) size of majority - group size of 3 led to conformity but adding further confederates made a difference to whether pts conformed (bond 2005 said conformity is a lot more likely face to face than it is when pts make private responses)
3) unanimity - presence of a dissenting confederate led to reduced conformity. (Moscovici 1969 showed that minority groups can influence majority as long as minority show consistency in their behaviour)

Question 8

explanations for conformity (2)

Answer 8

1) informational social influence (based on cognitive factors) - conforming because we want to be right, looking to others for right answers. going along with others who we believe have superior knowledge.
2) normative social influence (based on emotional factors) - occurs because of a need to be accepted by others and be part of a group, can be rewarded with reinforcement and approval (but may not change their private attitudes and opinions)

Question 9

evidence for explanations of conformity

Answer 9

Normative - Asch interviews after study showed that Pts conformed because they were self conscious of giving correct answer and afraid of disapproval. When they wrote answers down, conformity dropped down to 12.5% (from ab 75%) as there was no social pressure.
Informative - ISA study (Lucas) - Pts conformed more often when given more difficult maths questions, became ambiguous, didn’t want to be wrong, so relied on others’ answers.

Question 10

Zimbardo (1973) procedure (sample? what did they give prisoners and guards at beginning? how did prisoners and guards behave throughout?)

Answer 10

sample= (volunteering - ad in newspaper for uni students), 22 students chosen.
Prisoners role= dehumanised, deloused, fingerprinted and stripped

guards= given night stick, dark glasses, uniforms etc

guards consolidated their power by increasingly severe punishments

prisoners became more and more obedient or guards and accepted their position. No one stood up to guards, all just mirrored each others’ obedient behaviour

Question 11

Zimbardo (1973) findings

Answer 11

• only 10% of time were prisoners’ conversations about life outside of the prison
• one prisoner withdrawn after 36hrs due to uncontrollable fits of rage and crying
• 3 more had similar symptoms in days afterwards and were released

Question 12

obedience definition

Answer 12

the following of orders from someone of a higher authority.

Question 13

Milgram (1965) aim (plus was Pts thought)

Answer 13

Pts thought study was ab effects of punishment on memory - real aim was to see if people would obey orders of authority figure, even when there was fatal consequences.

Question 14

Milgram (1965) procedure

Answer 14

• sample= (volunteer) 40 american males aged 20-50 told to go to Yale Uni
• greeted by tall, stern-looking man “Mr Wallace” who played learner.
• Pts told roles randomly assigned but was rigged
• they saw Mr Wallace attached to shocking equipment
• in adjoining room, Pt asked Wallace question and had to shock him in increasingly stronger shocks. Shocks started at 15V and went up in 15V to 450V. Mr Wallace screamed and demanded to stop throughout.

Question 15

Milgram (1965) results (quantitative + qualitative)

Answer 15

qualitative= Pts looked uncomfortable and under some strain - sweaty, had seizures, showed nervous laughter and wanted to leave. Also hesitated pressing switches
quantitative= 100% gave 300V
65% gave max of 459V

Question 16

Milgram (1965) situational variables affecting obedience (% of obedience and explanation)

Answer 16

1) loss of uniform - 20%, visible loss of authority
2) location (moved from Yale to rundown office block) - 47.5%, locations add to perceived legitimacy of authority figure
3) proximity (???)
4) remote authority (absent experimenter - instructions given over phone) - 20%, reduced authority and legitimacy.

Question 17

Milgram (1965) situational variable remote authority (absent experimenter) supporting and contradicting evidence

Answer 17

supporting (Hofling) - 22 nurse Pts phoned by “Dr Smith” asking them to administer 20mg of Astrolen to patients (despite max dosage being 10mg). Nurses obeyed.

contradicting (Rank and Jacobson) - repeated Hoflings other than changing doctors name to someone they’d of heard of + asking them to give patients 3x max dosage of Valium (drug they were familiar with) - meant they could discuss with other nurses. 2/18 nurses followed orders. Increased realism decreased obedience rates.

Question 18

3 explanations for obedience (and what kind of explanation they are)

Answer 18

1) The Agentic State (situational explanation)
2) The Legitimacy of Authority (situational explanation)
3) Authoritarian Personality (dispositional explanation)

Question 19

Agentic state (definition, example, antonym?)

Answer 19

Individual gives up their free will and no longer sees themselves as acting independently, but merely as an “agent” implementing someone else’s decisions.

Eg- Milgram, Pts acting as agents of experimenter and carrying out their orders. Convinced themselves that they are ultimately not responsible. (diffused responsibility)

opposite of autonomous state (= aware of consequences and act as individual by our own conscious)

Question 20

Agentic state causes Moral strain (definition? coping mechanisms?(2))

Answer 20

Moral strain: feeling distressed as a consequence of going against your own conscience and doing something u know is wrong (consequence of being in agentic state)

coping mechanisms:
1) repression - motivated forgetting
2) denial - not accepting responsibility

Question 21

legitimacy of authority (socialisation + social hierarchy (2 egs)

Answer 21

socialisation - taught to obey authority

social hierarchy - institutions and uniforms promote legitimacy of authority - EG:
1) Milgram variations with settings
2) Bickman (1974) man asking people to pick up litter etc (guard uniform vs casual clothes)

Question 22

Authoritarian personality (3 reasons for it? + explanations for each) (also 1 way of measuring it)

Answer 22

1) might is right - Adorno (1950) saw individuals as having insecurities that led them to be hostile to non-conventional people. Have a need for power and toughness leading them to be highly obedient to authority figures.
2) upbringing - if raised by strict and distant parents who punished constantly for minor reasons and have rigid and absolute ideologies, they’ll learn to obey those who have any power or privelage over them.
3) personality traits - people with authoritarian personality = submissive to authority and hostile to other groups (often minority). Intolerance of ambiguity, tend to be more obedient.
4) F scale - Adorno developed F-scale which measures fascism: 30 questions measuring 9 dimensions of personality. Can easily identify who is authoritarian.

Question 23

resisting social influence (RSI) meaning (plus example - statistic of A’s study)

Answer 23

ability of people to withstand social pressure to conform to majority or obey authority.
(due to situational and dispositional factors)
25% of people in Asch’s study didn’t conform, resisted social influence)

Question 24

RSI social support (meaning + example)

Answer 24

when minority is given ally who also disagrees with majority, they’re more likely to resist social influence

eg- Asch, found that when unanimity was broken and pts were given social support from a confederate, conformity dropped to 5.5 (didn’t stand out from crowd as much, lower levels of anxiety)

Question 25

RSI - internal locus of control (LoC) (meaning + theorist)

Answer 25

the extent to which we think we have control over our own behaviour as measured by a questionnaire

Rotter (1966) suggested having internal LoC makes people more resistant to social pressure - believe they’re in control of situation, more likely to be self confident and perceive themselves as having a free choice.

Question 26

minority influence (definition)

Answer 26

social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms. Involves new belief being accepted both publicly and privately - form of internalisation.

Question 27

minority influence 3 types

Answer 27

1) consistency - agreement within the minority opinion, been spoken about for ages
2) commitment - minorities may engage in extreme activities in order to draw attention to their views.
3) Nemeth (1986) claims that minority need to be prepared to adapt views in order to keep attention of majority, must discuss and accept reasonable counter-arguments

Question 28

minority influence - consistency (support)

Answer 28

Moscovoci (1969) 172 females told they were doing colour perception task.
- Pts placed into groups of 6 and shown 26 slides (all varying shades of blue)
- Pts had to state out loud the colour of each slide
- 2/6 pts in each condition were confeds
- 1st condition: both confeds said all slides were green (consistent), Pts agreed on 8.2% of trials
- 2nd condition: confeds said 24 slides= green and 12=blue (inconsistent), Pts agreed on 1.25%

shows consistent minority= 6.95% more effective than inconsistent

Question 29

minority influence - support for flexibility (support)

Answer 29

Nemeth (1986)
Based on mock jury in which groups of 3pts and 1 bonded had to decide on amount of compensation given to victim of ski-lift accident

When consistent minority (confed) argued for very low amount and refused to change position, had no effect on majority.
However, when he compromised and moved somewhat towards majority position, majority compromised and changed their view.

Question 30

minority influence commitment (support)

Answer 30

Just Stop Oil
(aim to stop allowing production of fossil fuel) staged a series of high-profile protests in order to get attention of others they’ve
- closed M25 motorway
- stopped theatre productions etc
shows how important the cause is and how much it means to them

Question 31

Asch (1951; 1956) aim

Answer 31

to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform

Question 32

Zimbardo (1973) aim

Answer 32

To investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of a prison life