Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology paper 1 > Social influence > Flashcards

Social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Aschs Procedure

A

Asses what extent people will conform to other people’s opinions
123 American men, match the correct line to line x, one was clearly the same length. Testing in groups of 6-8, only 1 was genuine participant, always seated last two, the rest were confederates had to give the same incorrect answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Aschs finding

A

Agreed with incorrect answers 36.8% of the time
25% never gave a wrong answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Variable investigated by asch

A

Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Group size

A

Varied confederates from 1-15. Conformity increased with group size up to a point. 3 confederates conformity was 31.8% more confederates made little difference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Unanimity

A

presence of non-conforming present. Conformity decreased less than 1/4 of the level when it was anonymous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Task difficulty

A

Lines closer together, conformity increased, informative social influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Evaluation of aschs

A
  • Artificial situation and task
  • Limited application
  • research support
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

artificial situation and task

A
  • participants knew they were in study- demand characteristics
  • fiske- groups dont resemble groups in real life
  • findings dont relate to real life
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

limited application

A
  • all participants american men
  • US individualist culture (more concerned about themself)
  • similar studies done in collectivist culture (social group more important)found conformity rates higher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

research support

A
  • todd lucas - asked participants to solve easy to hard maths problems
  • conformity rates higher for harder questions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

research support counterpoint

A
  • study found conformity more complex than asch
  • participants with high confidence in maths conformed less
  • shows an individual-level factor can influence conformity by interacting with situational variables
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch ethical issues

A

Participants were deceived,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Types of conformity

A

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Internalisation

A

Person genuinely accepts groups norms, private and public change of opinion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Identification

A

Publicly change opinions to be accepted by a group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Compliance

A

Going alone with others in public but privately not changing personal opinions
Only superficial change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Informational influence

A

Follow behaviour of the group because they want to be right
Cognitive process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Informative influence strength

A

Todd Lucas found participant conformed when questions were harder, they didn’t want to be wrong so relied on answers they were given.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

informative influence weakness

A
  • Unclear where NSI and ISI work in research studies or real life
  • Asch found conformity reduced when there is one other dissenting participant, may reduce the power of ISI or NSI
  • Hard to separate ISI and NSI and both operate together in real world situations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Normative social influence

A

Gain social approval rather than be rejected, temporary change in options/ behaviour
Emotional process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Normative social influence strength

A
  • Aschs interview states some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious, and afraid of disapproval
  • when answers written down conformity dropped 12.5% - no normative group pressure
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

normative social influence weakness

A
  • Doesn’t predict conformity in every case
  • McGhee and Teevan – found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
  • NSI underlines conformity for some people more than it does for others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Zimbardo procedure

A
  • mock prison experiment in Stanford uni
  • 21 men emotionally stable, randomly assigned either guard or prisoner
  • Prisoners encouraged to conform to social roles
  • Uniforms - Prisoners identified as numbers, creates loss of personal identity (de-individualisation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Zimbardos findings

A
  • Within 2 days prisoners rebelled, guards harassed prisoners
  • 1 prisoner was released for symptoms of physchological disturbance
  • 2 more released on 4th day.
  • Guards behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive some enjoying the power
  • Study ended on day 6 instead of 14
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Zimbardos conclusion

A

Social roles have strong influence over behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Zimbardos evaluation

A

Control
Lack of realism
Exaggerates the power of role

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Control

A

-selection of participants (choosing emotionally stable) ruled out individual personality differences
- randomly assigned a role
- increased internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Lack of realism

A
  • Not like a real prison
  • Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued participants were play-acting and confirming to a role
  • Performance was based on stereotypes
  • one guard said perfomance based on film cool hand luke
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

lack of realism counterpoint

A
  • McDermott argues participants behaved as itwas to real to them
  • 90% of prisoners convos were ab prison life
  • 1 prisoner believed prison was real but run by psychologists
  • study replicated the social roles of prisoners and guards in real prison, giving study high internal validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Exaggerates the power of roles

A
  • Only 1/3 of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner
  • 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly. - rest sympathies with the prisoners
  • most guards able to resist situational pressure to conform
  • zimbardo overstated his view
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Milgram procedure

A
  • 40 American men aged 20-50
  • Learner was trapped in a chair and wired up who had to remember pairs of words
  • Each time he made an error the teacher had to deliver a shock getting stronger each time
  • when reach 300v learner banged on the wall, 315v was silent
  • All shocks were fake
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Milgrams findings

A
  • Every participants delivered the shock up to 300
  • 12.5% stopped at 300
  • 65% continued to highest level (450)
  • Participants were seen to sweat, 3 had seizures
  • Predicted only 3% would continue to 450 showing results were unexpected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Milgrams conclusion

A

German people are not different, participants were willing to obey orders even when it may harm others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Milgrams evaluations

A

Research support
Low internal validity
Alternative interpretation of findings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Research support

A
  • Replicated in french documentary
  • participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants
  • 80% reached top 460v almost identical to milgrams behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Low internal validity

A
  • Orne and Holland argued participants believed it was fake so play acted
  • Perry listened to tapes of participants around 1/2 believe shocks were real
  • 2/3 of them were disobedient
  • participants may be responding to demand characteristics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

low internal validity counterpoint

A
  • sheridan and King study like Milgram
  • participant gave real shock to puppy in response to orders from experimenter
  • 54%men 100% women gave fatal shock
  • Milgram was genuine similar results when shocks were real
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Alternative interpretation of findings

A
  • Haslam showed obeyed when experimenter gave verbal prods
  • According to social identity theory participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Situational variables

A

Proximity
Location
Uniform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Proximity

A
  • When teacher and learner in the same room obedience dropped dropped from 65% to 40%
  • When experimenter left the room obedience reduced to 20.5%
  • Decreased proximity allowed people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
41
Q

Location

A
  • When milgram was in a rundown office obedience fell to 47.5%,
  • When in Yale uni gave study legitimacy and authority
42
Q

Uniform

A
  • Experimenter wore lab coat to show authority
  • When role of experimenter was taken by a random member of the public obedience fell to 20%
43
Q

Situational variables evaluation

A

Research support
Cross-cultural replication
Low internal validity

44
Q

Research support

A
  • NY study (1974) 3 confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman, security guard
  • asked members of the public to pick up litter
  • people twice as likely to listen to security guard
45
Q

Cross cultural replication

A
  • Findings were replicated in other cultures
  • Dutch study - asked to say stressful things in a job interview
  • 90% obeyed
46
Q

Low internal validity

A
  • Participants may been aware experiment was fake
  • Study is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because they play acted, responding to demand characteristics
47
Q

Agentic state

A

Mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour

48
Q

autonomous state

A
  • Behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
49
Q

agentic shift

A
  • shift from autonomy to agency
  • Milgram suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure have greater power because they are higher in social hierarchy
50
Q

binding factors

A
  • Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain they are feeling
  • Eg shifting blame onto someone else
  • Milgram participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
51
Q

agentic state evaluation

A
  • research support
  • limited explanation
52
Q

research support

A
  • milgram support role of the agentic state in obedience
  • most participants resisted giving shocks at some point
  • who is responsible - asked participants, experimenter responded i am
  • participant carried on
  • shows once participant perceived they were no longer responsible for own behaviour they acted more easily
53
Q

limited explanation

A
  • agenicshift doesnt explain many findings about obedience
  • rank and Jacobsons study - 1618 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient
  • doctor - authority figure
  • nurse remained autonomous
  • suggest agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
54
Q

legitimacy of authority

A
  • Certain positions hold authority
  • authority figures exercise social power over others as this allows society to function smoothly
  • Consequence – people are granted the power to punish others
55
Q

destructive authority

A
  • Powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel
  • Milgram’s study – experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
56
Q

legitimacy of authority evaluation

A
  • explains cultural differences
  • cant explain instances of disobedience
57
Q

explains cultural differences

A
  • Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
  • Kilham and Mann found 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450v in Milgram’s study
  • Mantell found German participants 85%
  • Shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
  • Reflects way that different societies are structured and how children perceive authority figures
58
Q

cant explain all instances of disobedience

A
  • Rank and Jacobson study- most were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
  • Significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority
  • Suggests that some people may just be more/less obedient than others
  • It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on the behaviour than legitimacy of an authority figure
59
Q

authoritarian personality and obedience

A
  • Adorno et al argued people with authoritarian personality show extreme respect for authority
  • view society as weaker than once was so believe need strong leaders to enforce traditional values
  • show contempt for those of inferior status - inflexible outlook
60
Q

origins of the authoritarian personality

A
  • form in childhood, mostly from harsh parenting
  • strict discipline, high expectations , parents give conditional love
  • create resentment cant be expressed to parent so is displaced onto those weaker than them -psychodynamic explanation
61
Q

adorno et al research

A
  • studied 2000 middle class white americans and their unconscious attitudes towards ethnic groups
  • F scale to measure authoritarian personality
  • those who scored high identified with strong people, contemptuous of the weak, conciosu of their status
  • found they had a cognitive style - black and white thinking
62
Q

authoritarian personality

A
  • research support
  • limited explanation
  • political bias
63
Q

research support

A
  • milgram and Elms interviewed small sample of people who had participated in the obedience studies and been fully obedient
  • completed the F scale
  • scored significantly higher than disobedient
  • obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have authoritarian personality
64
Q

counterpoint

A
  • when analysed individual subscales of F scale found obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians
  • milgrams participants didnt glorify their dads
  • link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex
65
Q

limited explanation

A
  • authoritarianism cant explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population
  • prewar germany - millions showed obedient behaviour
  • even though personalities differed
  • unlikely they could all possess authoritarian personality
  • alternative approach that they identified with anti-Semitic nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of jews a social identity theory approach
  • alternative explanation is more realistic
66
Q

political bias

A
  • f scale only measures the tendency towards an extream form of right wing ideology
  • Christie and Jahoda argues the F scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality
  • left wing authoritarianism in shape of Russian Bolshevism
  • means adornos theory isnt comprehensive dispositional explanations that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum
67
Q

resistance to social influence

A
  • social support
  • locus of control
68
Q

social support

A
  • resisting conformity - if other people present who arent conforming, enables naive participant to be free to follow their own conscious, confederate acts as model of independent behaviour
  • resisting obedience - another person disobeys, milgram obedience fell from 65% to 10%, acts as model of dissent for the participant to copy and frees him from his own conscious
69
Q

social support evaluation

A
  • real world research support
  • research support for dissenting peers
70
Q

real world research support

A
  • Albrecht et al evaluated teen fresh start USA, an 8 week program to help pregnant 14-19 yr resist pressure to smoke
  • social support offered by older buddy
  • end of program those with buddy were less likely to smoke than control group
71
Q

research support for dissenting peers

A
  • Gamson et al participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help oil company run campaign
  • higher levels of resistance in their study than in milgrams
  • participant were in groups so could discuss
  • 88% groups rebelled against orders
  • shows peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authoritarian figure
72
Q

locus of control

A
  • sense of what directs events in our lives
  • external - outside of their control
  • internal - controlled by themselves
73
Q

LOC continuum

A
  • people are a mix of both
  • somewhere along the scale
74
Q

resistance to social influence

A
  • Internals more likely to resist pressure, base their decisions on their own beliefs
  • Internals – more self confident, more achievement- orientated – traits lead to higher resistance to social influence
75
Q

LOC evaluation

A
  • research support
    -contradictory research
76
Q

research support

A
  • holland repeated milgram measured whether participants were internal or external
  • 37% internal didnt continue to highest shock - 23% externals
  • increase validity of LOC as explanation of SI
77
Q

contradictory research

A
  • Challenges the link between LOC and resistance
  • Twenge analysed data from American LOC studies
  • 40+ years people became more resistant to obedience and external
  • if resistance is linked to LOC we would expect more people to be internal
  • not valid explanation of how people resist Si
78
Q

minority influence

A
  • person/small group influence beliefs and behaviour
  • lead to internalisation
79
Q

minority influence factors

A
  • consistency
  • commitment
  • flexibility
80
Q

consistency

A
  • increases interest from others
  • can be synchronic consistency or diachronic consistency
  • consistent minority makes people start to rethink their own view
81
Q

commitment

A
  • demonstrates dedication to their position - eg making personal sacrifice
  • majority group pay more attention - argumentation principle, and shows minority isnt acting out of self-interest
82
Q

flexibility

A
  • relentless consistency could be counter-productive if its seen as unreasonable
  • repeating same arguments may viewed as rigid
  • show flexibility by accepting compromise
  • balance between flexibility and consistency
83
Q

explaining the process of change

A
  • if you hear something new you are more likely to think about it more deeply
  • more people that convert, faster rate of conversion - snowball effect- minority becomes the majority
84
Q

minority influence evaluation

A
  • research support for consistency
  • research support for deeper processing
    -artificial task
85
Q

research support for consistency

A
  • Moscovici blue/ green slide study
  • Group of 6 view set of 36 blue slides and asked whether its blue or green,2 confederates who said were green, participant gave wrong answer 8% of time, second group had inconsistent minority participant dropped to 1.25% , third group no confederates 0.25%
  • Showed that a consistent minority opinion had greater effect on changing the views than inconsistent opinion
  • Wood carried out meta analysis of 100 similar studies and found minorities who consistent more influential
  • Presenting consistent view is a minimum requirement for minority trying to influence decision
86
Q

research support for deeper processing

A
  • Martin presented supporting viewpoint and measured participants agreement
  • 1 group then heard majority group agree with it
  • Participants were exposed to conflict view and attitudes measured again
  • People less willing to change opinion if listened to minority group than majority group
  • Suggests minority message was more deeply processed and had more enduing effect
87
Q

research support for deeper processing counterpoint

A
  • Study make clear distinctions between majority and minority
  • Doing this in real life situation very complicated
  • Majorities usually have more power and status
  • Minorities more committed- often face very hostile oppositions
  • Theses features usually absent from minority influence research
  • Martins findings very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence
88
Q

artificial task

A
  • Moscovici was artificial study
  • Research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life
  • Eg jury decision making the outcomes important
  • Means findings of minority influence are lacking in external validity and limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real life social situations
89
Q

social influence

A

individuals/groups change each other’s behaviour and attitudes

90
Q

social change

A

whole societies rather than just individuals adopt new attitudes and beliefs

91
Q

lessons from minority influence

A
  • drawing attention through social proof
  • consistency
  • deeper processing of the issue
  • the argumentation principle
  • snowball effect
  • social cryptomnesia
92
Q

lessons from conformity research

A
  • When 1 confederate gave the correct answer in Asch variation influenced the majority to do the same – lead to social change
  • Environmental and health campaigns utilise normative social influence – ‘most of us don’t drink and drive’
93
Q

lessons from obedience research

A
  • Zimbardo suggests gradual commitment is important – once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much harder to resist a bigger one
94
Q

social influence and social change evaluation

A
  • research support for normative influences
  • minority influence explains change
  • role of deeper processing
  • barriers to social change
95
Q

research support for normative influences

A
  • nolan - see if people could change energy use habits
  • hung messages on the front doors of houses every week for a month
  • saying most people tyring to reduce their energy - control group didnt mention other people
  • significant decrease compared to control
  • conformity can lead to social change
96
Q

counterpoint

A
  • NSI doesnt always lead to change
  • 70 studies where social norms approach on student drinking
  • no effect on freq of drinking, little effect on amount
  • using normative influence doesnt always produce LT social change
97
Q

minority influence explains change

A
  • nemth - social change due to thinking that minorities inspire
  • when consider minority arguments they engage in divergent thinking
  • ague this leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social issues
  • shows why dissenting minorities are valuable - new ideas and opens mind
98
Q

role of deeper processing change

A
  • bashir - people still resist social change
  • found participants were less likely to behave environmentally friendly because they didn’t want to be associated with stereotypical and minority environmentalist
  • described environmental activist in negative way
  • able to suggest ways in which minorities can overcome barriers to social change

Psychology paper 1 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions