Social influence Flashcards
1
Q
What is ISI?
A
Informational social influence.
2
Q
What is NSI?
A
Normative social influence.
3
Q
What is compliance?
A
-A superficial and temporary type of conformity.
-We outwardly go along with the majority view whilst privately disagreeing.
-This change in behaviour only occurs whilst in the presence of the group.
4
Q
What is identification?
A
- A moderate type of conformity.
- We act in the same way as the group because we value and want to be a part of it.
- This occurs even if we do not necessarily agree with everything the group / majority believes.
5
Q
What is internalisation?
A
-A deep type of conformity.
-We take on the majority view as we accept it as the correct view.
-This leads to permanent change in behaviour, functioning even when the group is absent.
6
Q
What study did Asch do
A
Line judgment study into conformity.
7
Q
List Asch’s 3 variables.
A
- Group size
- Unanimity
- Task difficulty
8
Q
Explain ISI
A
- This is an explanation of conformity wherein we agree with the opinion of the majority as we believe it is correct.
- We accept this as we want to be correct aswell.
- It is a cognitive process.
- Happens in situations of ambiguity.
9
Q
What does ISI lead to?
A
Internalisation.
10
Q
Explain NSI
A
- An explanation of conformity where people agree with the majority view as we want to gain approval.
- This occurs from the human need to be liked, avoiding rejection.
- This is an emotional process
- This leads to compliance
(non permanent)
11
Q
Evaluate types and explanations of conformity.
A
- Presence of nAffiliators.
There are individual differences in NSI.
Being an nAffiliator (having a higher need to affiliate and be liked) may be a factor in how people conform. Studies have outlined how students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
This shows how NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. Individual differences cannot be fully explained by one singular theory of situational pressures in NSI. - Research support for NSI
Asch followed up his investigation on conformity with an interview. In this, some reported that they conformed to the groups line judgement due to feeling self-conscious in giving the correct answer in fear of disapproval. When the answers were written, conformity fell to 12.5% due to privacy meaning that there was no normative group pressure. This suggests that at least some conformity is due to fear of being rejected from the group if they disagreed. - Research support for ISI
Lucas found that participants, in a study on task difficulty, conformed more to incorrect answers when the math problems became more difficult. This can be explained by ISI: the participants felt more confident when the questions were easy, however, when the math problems became harder the situation became ambiguous. The participants did not want to be incorrect and so relied on the answers of the group. This shows how ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results were predicted by this reason. - Difficulty in distinguishing.
It is often unclear whether ISI or NSI is operating in research studies or real life. For example, Asch found that conformity decreased when there was one other dissenting confederate. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI through offering social support, or alternatively, they may decrease the power of ISI through providing an alternate source of social information). Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate NSI and ISI as both processes most likely interact in most real world conformity situations.
12
Q
What percent of the time did genuine participants agree with the incorrect answer?
(Asch baseline)
A
36.8 % of the time.
13
Q
What percentage of participants never gave an incorrect answer?
(Asch)
A
25 %
14
Q
Define “social roles”
A
- The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups.
- These are accompanied by expectations we and over have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
15
Q
Who did the Stanford prison experiment?
A
Zimbardo et al. (1973)
16
Q
What is the relationship between task difficulty and conformity?
A
- The more difficult the task, the higher the level of conformity.
17
Q
What is the relationship between group size and conformity?
A
- There is a curvilinear relationship between group size and conformity.
(It levels off) - Conformity increases with group size, only up to a certain point.
-With three confederates, conformity to the wrong answers rose to 31.8%
However, adding more confederates made little difference.
18
Q
What is the relationship between unanimity and conformity?
A
- Conformity rises with group unanimity.
- The influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous.
19
Q
Outline Aschs baseline procedure.
A
- 123 American male students were tested in groups of 6 to 8.
- Each participant were shown two large white cards on each trial.
Line X was the standard line, displayed on the left hand card.
Lines A, B and C were offered as three comparison lines. - One of the comparison lines was clearly the same length as X, the other two were substantially different.
- On each trial the participant had to say (out loud) which of the comparison lines was the same length as standard line X.
- Only one person in the group was a genuine participant (naïve), and they were always seated either last or next to last in the group.
The other participants were confederates of Asch, being scripted to give the same incorrect answers each time. - The genuine participant did not know the others were ‘fake’ participants.
20
Q
How did Asch manipulate the variable of group size?
A
- Asch varied the number of confederates from 1 - 15.
(Total group size was from 2 - 16) - With three confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%, but there was little difference following that.
21
Q
How did Asch manipulate the variable of unanimity?
A
- Asch placed another confederate in to act as a dissenter, making them give the correct answer on one variant and an incorrect answer on another variant.
- The naïve participant confirmed less often in the presence of a dissenter.
- This was because the presence of a dissenter gives the genuine participant social support, freeing them to behave more independently.
- This was true even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant.
22
Q
How did Asch manipulate the variable of task difficulty?
A
- Asch made the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar to each other in length.
- This meant that it because harder for the genuine participant to identify the difference between lines, creating a situation of ambiguity.
23
Q
Evaluate Asch’s research
A
- Artificial situation and task
Demand characteristics may have been present as the participants knew they were in a research study. The line task was relatively trivial so there was no reason not to conform. The groups did not resemble groups present in everyday life meaning that the findings cannot be generalized to real life settings, especially to those where conformity may be important. - Limited application
The participant demographic was restricted to American men. The US is an individualist culture meaning that the findings cannot be applied to collectivist cultures where conformity is higher according to separate studies. This also disregards the conformity patterns in women, believed to be higher due to valuing social relations more.
This means that Asch’s findings tell us little about the population outside of American men in their conformity behavior. - Research support
There is support from Lucas’s study on task difficulty. Todd Lucas gave participants math’s questions ranging from easy to hard. The participants were able to be provided answers from 3 separate people. The findings showed that participants conformed more often, agreeing with incorrect answers when the questions were harder. This demonstrates how Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty was a variable influencing conformity. - Disregards individual factors.
Conformity is more complex than Asch suggested. This is seen in Lucas’s study where those more confident in their mathematical ability conformed less even on the harder questions compared with participants with low confidence. This demonstrates that individual-level factors can impact conformity, interacting with situational variables such as task difficulty in Asch’s study. Asch, however, did not research the roles of individual factors.
24
Q
Outline the process of Stanford prison experiment.
A
- A mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford’s psychology department.
- 24 male college students were selected.
They underwent psychological examinations and then were randomly allocated for the role of a prison guard or prisoner. - Prisoners and guards were encouraged to conform to to their social roles through uniforms and instructions about their behavior.
25
Q
How was uniform used in Stanford prison experiment?
A
- DE-INDIVIDUATION.
- Prisoners were given a loose smock and assigned numbers, confiscating their personal identity.
- Guards were provided with uniform that reflected the status of their role.
They were equipped with a wooden club, handcuff and mirror shades. - These uniforms created a loss of personal identity, meaning that the participants would be more likely to conform to their perceived role.
- Along with uniform, guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete control over the prisoners.
26
Q
Evaluate conformity to social roles.
A
- Control
Zimbardo maintained control over VARIABLES.
An example of this was in the selection of participants. Emotionally stable individuals were selected and random assigned to roles, this was to eliminate the possibility of individual personality differences interfering in the findings. This means that if guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles by chance, this behavior would be attributed to adopting this social role.
This means that from this degree of control, we can feel confident in drawing conclusions - Lack of realism
The Stanford prison experiment did not have the realism of a real prison. Psychologists argue that participants were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. This claim can be supported by the fact that a prison guard admitted to mimicking a character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’ - this means that participants were mainly acting on the stereotypes of how they expected the roles to behave. This would explain why prisoners rioted - because they assumed that this was what real prisoners did. This suggests that the SPE findings tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons. - Exaggerates the power of roles
Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles in the SPE. Only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutalist manner, with 1/3 taking a neutral and fair role and the remainder actively trying to support the prisoners. This was seen in their actions of sympathy, offering the prisoners cigarettes and reinstating privilege’s. Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal social role. This suggests that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and disregarded dispositional influences such as personality. - Potential high internal validity
Contrary to the idea that the prison lacked realism, some psychologists argue that participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. For example, 90% of the prisoners conversations surrounded prison life - discussing how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘sentences’ were over. This is reinforced by Prisoner 416 later explaining how he thought the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists as opposed to the government. This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in the prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
27
Q
How many men took part in Milgrams experiment?
A
40 men
28
Q
How many men took part in Zimbardos experiment?
A
24 men passed the test.
29
Q
In Milgrams obedience experiment what was the range in voltage?
A
15 - 450 volts
30
Q
Define ‘Obedience’
A
- A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.
- This order is usually issued by a figure of authority who holds the right to punish disobedience.
31
Q
How many, in Milgram’s experiment, delivered the maximum voltage?
A
65%
32
Q
How many, in Milgram’s experiment, stopped delivering shocks after 300 volts?
A
12.5% (5 participants)
33
Q
What qualitative data did Milgram record in his participants?
A
- EXTREME TENSION
- stuttering
- trembling
- sweating
34
Q
What can be concluded from Milgram’s experiment on obedience?
A
American participants were no ‘different’ to Germans, the participants were still willing to obey orders even if it harmed another individual.
35
Q
What were the switches labelled in Milgrams experiment?
A
- Slight shock
- Intense shock
- Danger - severe shock
36
Q
What were each of the three participants labelled in Milgram’s experiment?
A
- Teacher (T): genuine participant
- Learner (L): confederate
- Experimenter (E): confederate
37
Q
Outline the baseline procedure of Milgram’s experiment into obedience.
(Best to write down this one)
A
- 40 American men volunteered to take part, under the assumption that they were participating in a memory test.
- The participants were introduced to another participant, this participant was a confederate for Milgram.
- They drew lots (which were fixed) to determine who would take the role of ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’
As these lots were fixed, the genuine participant always got the role of teacher. - The confederate ‘learner’ was strapped to a chair and was wired up with electrodes - being asked to remember pairs of words.
- The ‘teacher’ was required to deliver a stronger electric shock each time the ‘learner’ said an incorrect answer by pressing switches on a shock machine.
! the shocks were not real ! - The experimenter acted as an authority figure, prompting the ‘teacher’ to continue: (please continue, the experiment requires that you continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, you have no other choice you must go on)
38
Q
Evaluate Milgram’s obedience.
A
- Research support
Milgram’s results were replicated in a French documentary. This documentary focused on a game show setup where participants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other (confederate) participants under the orders of the presenter. The findings showed that 80% delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts, even when the confederate victim was seen to be unconscious. The qualitative information such as behavior paralleled to those in Milgram’s baseline study - exhibiting nervous laughter, nail biting and other signals of anxiety.
The implication of this was that it supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience, demonstrating that these results were not by chance or special circumstances - this also demonstrates TEMPORAL VALIDITY. - Low internal validity
Milgram’s procedure may not have been testing what it was intending to.
Milgram had reported that 75% of participants said they believed the shocks were real, however, one can argue that they only behaved that way due to doubting the setup. Gina Perry supports this, re-evaluating the tapes and finding that only around half believed that it was real. Two thirds of these participants were disobedient. This proposes that demand characteristics may have been involved, meaning that the participants were only attempting to fulfill study aims - LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY. - Alternative interpretation of findings (SIT).
Milgram’s conclusion upon blind obedience may not be justified. Haslam demonstrated that Milgram’s participants only had obeyed up to the third 3 verbal prompts, however following the forth (“you have no choice, you must go on”) many without exception disobeyed. According to social identity theory, participants in Milgram’s study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the experiment: “the experiment requires that you continue). When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused. This suggests that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram’s findings, reinforced by the fact that Milgram himself proposed that ‘identifying with science’ contributes. - Counterpoint to validity argument.
Two psychologists (Sheridan and King) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram. Student participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter. Despite the real distress exhibited by the animal, 54% of males and 100% of females gave what they believed to be a fatal shock. This reinforces how Milgram’s propositions were genuine as people still behaved obediently when it was evident and confirmed that real harm was involved.
39
Q
What is a situational variable?
A
Features of the immediate physical and social environment that could influence a persons behaviour.
40
Q
Who created the F-scale?
A
Adorno
41
Q
What is the authoritarian personality?
A
A personality type that Adorno argued was susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
42
Q
How did Adorno research the authoritarian personality?
A
Adorno created the F-scale, using 2000 middle-class white Americans to measure unconscious attitudes towards other groups.
This scale measures the authoritarian personality.
43
Q
What did Adorno find from the F-scale?
A
- People who scored higher on the F-scale were people with authoritarian leanings.
- These people identified with “strong” people and were contemptuous of the “weak”.
- They were conscious of their status, and others status, - showing extreme respect, defense and servility to those of a higher status.
- Authoritarian individuals hold a unique cognitive style in which they favor a fixed ‘black and white’ way of thinking.
This means that they have fixed and distinctive stereotypes of other groups. - Adorno identified a positive correlation between the authoritarian personality and prejudice.
44
Q
What does the F-scale stand for?
A
Fascism scale.
45
Q
What is the origins of the authoritarian personality?
A
- Adorno believed the authoritarian personality forms in childhood, being a result of parenting.
- The parenting style associated with the authoritarian personality features extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute obedience. Impossibly high standards and criticism of perceived failings creates conditional love.
46
Q
What type of explanation is the authoritarian personality?
A
A dispositional explanation for obedience.
47
Q
What did Adorno believe of the Authoritarian personality?
A
- They show an extreme respect (and submissiveness) to authority.
- View society as ‘weaker’ than it once was
- Believe that we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce values.
- Like traditional values such as patriotism and family.
- Show contempt for those of inferior social status
- Inflexible: no grey areas! (uncomfortable with uncertainty)
- More likely to obey a figure of authority.
48
Q
What parenting features can cause the authoritarian personality?
A
- Extremely strict discipline
- Expectations of absolute obedience / loyalty.
- Impossibly high standards.
- Severe criticism of “failings”
- Conditional love.
