Social influence

Question 1

What is ISI?

Answer 1

Informational social influence.

Question 2

What is NSI?

Answer 2

Normative social influence.

Question 3

What is compliance?

Answer 3

• 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.

Question 4

What is identification?

Answer 4

• 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.

Question 5

What is internalisation?

Answer 5

• 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.

Question 6

What study did Asch do

Answer 6

Line judgment study into conformity.

Question 7

List Asch’s 3 variables.

Answer 7

• Group size
• Unanimity
• Task difficulty

Question 8

Explain ISI

Answer 8

• 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.

Question 9

What does ISI lead to?

Answer 9

Internalisation.

Question 10

Explain NSI

Answer 10

• 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)

Question 11

Evaluate types and explanations of conformity.

Answer 11

• 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.

Question 12

What percent of the time did genuine participants agree with the incorrect answer?
(Asch baseline)

Answer 12

36.8 % of the time.

Question 13

What percentage of participants never gave an incorrect answer?
(Asch)

Answer 13

25 %

Question 14

Define “social roles”

Answer 14

• 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.

Question 15

Who did the Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 15

Zimbardo et al. (1973)

Question 16

What is the relationship between task difficulty and conformity?

Answer 16

• The more difficult the task, the higher the level of conformity.

Question 17

What is the relationship between group size and conformity?

Answer 17

• 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.

Question 18

What is the relationship between unanimity and conformity?

Answer 18

• Conformity rises with group unanimity.
• The influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous.

Question 19

Outline Aschs baseline procedure.

Answer 19

• 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.

Question 20

How did Asch manipulate the variable of group size?

Answer 20

• 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.

Question 21

How did Asch manipulate the variable of unanimity?

Answer 21

• 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 conformed 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.

Question 22

How did Asch manipulate the variable of task difficulty?

Answer 22

• 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.

Question 23

Evaluate Asch’s research

Answer 23

• 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.

Question 24

Outline the process of Stanford prison experiment.

Answer 24

• 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.

Question 25

How was uniform used in Stanford prison experiment?

Answer 25

• 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.

Question 26

Evaluate conformity to social roles.

Answer 26

• 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.

Question 27

How many men took part in Milgrams experiment?

Answer 27

40 men

Question 28

How many men took part in Zimbardos experiment?

Answer 28

24 men passed the test.

Question 29

In Milgrams obedience experiment what was the range in voltage?

Answer 29

15 - 450 volts

Question 30

Define ‘Obedience’

Answer 30

• 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.

Question 31

How many, in Milgram’s experiment, delivered the maximum voltage?

Answer 31

65%

Question 32

How many, in Milgram’s experiment, stopped delivering shocks after 300 volts?

Answer 32

12.5% (5 participants)

Question 33

What qualitative data did Milgram record in his participants?

Answer 33

• EXTREME TENSION
• stuttering
• trembling
• sweating

Question 34

What can be concluded from Milgram’s experiment on obedience?

Answer 34

American participants were no ‘different’ to Germans, the participants were still willing to obey orders even if it harmed another individual.

Question 35

What were the switches labelled in Milgrams experiment?

Answer 35

• Slight shock
• Intense shock
• Danger - severe shock

Question 36

What were each of the three participants labelled in Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 36

• Teacher (T): genuine participant
• Learner (L): confederate
• Experimenter (E): confederate

Question 37

Outline the baseline procedure of Milgram’s experiment into obedience.
(Best to write down this one)

Answer 37

• 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)

Question 38

Evaluate Milgram’s obedience.

Answer 38

• 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.

Question 39

What is a situational variable?

Answer 39

Features of the immediate physical and social environment that could influence a persons behaviour.

Question 40

Who created the F-scale?

Answer 40

Adorno

Question 41

What is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 41

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.

Question 42

How did Adorno research the authoritarian personality?

Answer 42

Adorno created the F-scale, using 2000 middle-class white Americans to measure unconscious attitudes towards other groups.
This scale measures the authoritarian personality.

Question 43

What did Adorno find from the F-scale?

Answer 43

• 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.

Question 44

What does the F-scale stand for?

Answer 44

Fascism scale.

Question 45

What is the origins of the authoritarian personality?

Answer 45

• 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.

Question 46

What type of explanation is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 46

A dispositional explanation for obedience.

Question 47

What did Adorno believe of the Authoritarian personality?

Answer 47

• 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.

Question 48

What parenting features can cause the authoritarian personality?

Answer 48

• Extremely strict discipline
• Expectations of absolute obedience / loyalty.
• Impossibly high standards.
• Severe criticism of “failings”
• Conditional love.

Question 49

How does upbringing cause the authoritarian personality?

Answer 49

Childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in the child.
The child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents due to the fear of punishment.
These feelings are displaced onto others they perceive to be weaker in a process known as scapegoating.

Question 50

What psychological approach explains why the authoritarian personality forms?

Answer 50

Psychodynamic approach.

Question 51

Evaluate dispositional explanations for obedience.

Answer 51

• Research support
  Evidence from Milgram supports the authoritarian personality dispositional explanation. Milgram had interviewed a small sample of people who had initially participated in the original obedience study who had been fully obedient. They all completed Adorno’s F-scale (and other measures) as part of this interview. The findings showed that these participants scored higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.
  The two groups were clearly quite different in terms of authoritarianism. This finding supports Adorno’s view that obedient people may show similar characteristics to those with an authoritarian personality.
• Counterpoint to research support.
  When researchers analyzed the individual subscales of the F-scale, they found that obedient participants could possess a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. For example, unlike authoritarians, Milgram’s obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers, as expected for those with authoritarian personalities. In addition, they did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not display hostile attitudes towards their mothers. This suggests that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex. The obedient participants were unlike authoritarians in multiple characteristics meaning that authoritarianism may not be a useful predictor of obedience.
• Limited explanation
  Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behavior in the majority of people, for example across a whole country. Applying this point to Nazi Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviors. It is very unlikely a whole nation could share the same personality, let alone an authoritarian personality. This means that SIT can explain this better, the majority of German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the Jewish people. This suggests that Adorno’s theory is limited because an alternative explanation is much more realistic.
• Political bias
  The F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology, disregarding those obedient to the opposite end of the political spectrum. The F-scale is named after fascism, being a politically biased interpretation of authoritarianism. This ignores authoritarianism in the form of left-wing ideologies such as Bolshevism or Maoism on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Extremist ideas, whether right or left wing have a lot of things in common - making it inappropriate to base this theory solely on right-wing tendency. Both emphasize the importance of complete obedience to political authority. This means that Adorno’s theory isn’t comprehensive as a dispositional explanation, accounting only for right wing authority without consideration of the whole political spectrum.

Question 52

What is a situational variable?

Answer 52

Features of the immediate physical and social environment that may influence a persons behavior.

Question 53

What were the 5 situational variables Milgram studied for obedience?

Answer 53

• Location
• Proximity (teacher and learner in the same room)
• Proximity (Touch proximity - teacher forces hand onto plate)
• Proximity (Remote instruction - experimenter left the room)
• Uniform

Question 54

How did Milgram manipulate the variable of uniform?

Answer 54

The experimenter, who wore a grey lab coat, was ‘called away’ from the experiment - making the role of experimenter be taken over by a member of the public (a confederate) who wore normal attire.

Question 55

What % did obedience drop to with the variable of uniform

Answer 55

20%

Question 56

Why does uniform influence obedience?

Answer 56

Uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience as they are widely recognized symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is perceived as more legitimate.

Question 57

How did Milgram manipulate the variable of location?

Answer 57

Milgram changed the experiment setting to a run-down office block rather than in the original Yale University where the baseline study took place.

Question 58

What % did obedience fall to when location changed?

Answer 58

47.5%

Question 59

How did location influence obedience in Milgram’s study?

Answer 59

Having a prestigious university environment gave the experiment more legitimacy and authority.
Despite this, obedience was still fairly high in the office block as the participants still ‘perceived’ the scientific nature of the experiment.

Question 60

What variables of proximity did Milgram investigate?

Answer 60

• Touch proximity: teachers had to force learners hand onto plate
• Remote instruction: teachers were issued orders via telephone
• Basic proximity: the learner and teacher were in the same room

Question 61

Why does proximity influence obedience?

Answer 61

Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Question 62

What was the baseline % of obedience, relating to situational variables?

Answer 62

65%

Question 63

What % did obedience fall to with touch proximity?

Answer 63

30%

Question 64

What % did obedience fall to with remote instruction?

Answer 64

20.5%

Question 65

What % did obedience fall to with physical proximity?

Answer 65

40%

Question 66

What % did obedience fall to in the uniform variation?

Answer 66

20%

Question 67

What % was obedience in the location variation?

Answer 67

47.5%

Question 68

In order from highest to lowest obedience levels, list the % conformity of each variable investigated by Milgram.

Answer 68

BASELINE
Location variation
Proximity variation
Touch proximity variation
Remote instruction variation
Uniform variation.

Question 69

Evaluate situational variables of obedience.

Answer 69

• Lack of internal validity
  Orne and Holland claimed that many of Milgram’s participants had realization that the situation was fake, and this was only enhanced by the manipulation of situational variables. This is seen in the variation where a confederate playing a normal member of the public took the role of experimenter in their absence. This situation seems too unrealistic and obscure - leading to the emergence of demand characteristics. Reinforcing this point, even Milgram had admitted that this variant was so far fetched that participants would have easily inferred its intentions. This implies that situational variables manipulated may not have held ecological validity meaning that you can not make conclusions upon how this impacts obedience.
• Supporting research
  Other studies have observed the influence of situational variables on obedience. An example of this was in a field experiment set in New York City. Bickman had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket and tie, milkman outfit and a security guards uniform. The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as picking up litter. It was found that people were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard compared to the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This supports the idea that a situational variable, such as uniform, has a powerful effect on obedience.
• Cross cultural replications
  A strength of Milgram’s research is that findings have been replicated in other cultures. This is seen in a Dutch study where participants were ordered to say stressful things to a confederate interviewee who acted desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. The researcher further replicated Milgram’s findings in the proximity situational variable. When the person giving orders was absent, obedience declined dramatically. This suggests that Milgram’s findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or men, but are valid cross culturally.
• Cultural counterpoint
  Replications of Milgram’s research are not generally viewed to be very ‘cross-cultural’. There have only been two main culturally dissimilar replications, occurring in Jordan and India. Most others were carried out in countries such as Australia and Scotland which are relatively similar to the USA in a cultural sense. This suggests that it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram’s findings, including those in situational variables, apply to people in most cultures.

Question 70

What is the definition of agentic state?

Answer 70

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behavior as we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure.
This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

Question 71

What is the definition of legitimacy of authority?

Answer 71

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey individuals who we perceive to have authority over us.
This authority is justified (made LEGITIMATE) by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy.

Question 72

What are the agentic state and legitimacy of authority?

Answer 72

Situational explanations for obedience.

Question 73

What is an ‘agent’ ?

Answer 73

Someone who acts for or in place of another.

Question 74

Do agents experience moral strain?

Answer 74

YES.
They experience high anxiety when they realize what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.

Question 75

What is autonomous state?

Answer 75

The opposite of agentic state.
A person in an autonomous state is independent, free to behave according to their own principles and feels as sense of responsibility for their own actions.

Question 76

What is ‘agentic shift’ ?

Answer 76

The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’
This, according to Milgram, occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure.

Question 77

What are ‘Binding factors’

Answer 77

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimize the damaging effect of their behavior - thus reducing ‘moral strain’

Question 78

Give to examples of binding factors.

Answer 78

• Deferring blame to victim
• Denying damage they are doing to victim

Question 79

Where do we learn legitimacy of authority?

Answer 79

We learn acceptance of legitimate authority in childhood, from parents initially and then teachers / adults generally.

Question 80

What is a consequence of ‘legitimacy of authority’

Answer 80

• Some people are granted the power to punish others.
• We are willing to give up some of our independence, handing control of our behavior over to those we trust to exercise their authority appropriately.
• This means there is a risk one will not exercise authority appropriately.

Question 81

What is destructive authority?

Answer 81

Where those in positions of authority will exercise their powers for destructive purposes - ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.

Question 82

Was destructive authority modelled in Milgram’s study on obedience?

Answer 82

YES.
The experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.

Question 83

Evaluate situational explanation of legitimacy of authority for obedience.

Answer 83

• Explains cultural differences.
  It is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many study replications can identify differences between cultures - such as only 16% of Australian women, in a Milgram style experiment, going up to 450 volts whereas 85% of Germans did this. This shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be perceived as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority.
• Cannot explain all (dis)obedience.
  It cannot explain all instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. This extends to the nurse study previously mentioned. In this hospital environment, most nurses disobeyed even despite the rigidly hierarchal structure. Also, a significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognizing the experimenters scientific authority. This suggests that some people may just be more (or less) obedient than others. This means that dispositional factors may play a more significant influence on obedience.

Question 84

Evaluate the situational explanation of agentic state for obedience.

Answer 84

• Research support
  Milgram’s own studies support the role of agentic state in obedience. Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at any one point, and often asked questions to the experimenter about the procedure. An example of these was enquiring who would be responsible if the Learner was harmed. When the experimenter clarified that they (the experimenter) would be responsible, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. This conveys that once participants perceived that they were no longer at fault for their own behavior, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, predicted by Milgram.
• Limited explanation
  A limitation of the agentic shift is that it does not explain research findings surrounding obedience. This can be witnessed in a study on nurses where 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive dose of a drug to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure, however, almost all of the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s participants.
  This suggests that agentic shift can only account for rare situations of obedience.

Question 85

What is resistance to social influence?

Answer 85

The ability of people to withstand the social pressures to conform to the majority or obey authority.
This can be influenced by both dispositional and situational factors.

Question 86

What is social support?

Answer 86

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey.
These people act as models to allow others to find independence in their views and dissent.

Question 87

What is the locus of control?

Answer 87

Refers to the sense we each have surrounding what directs events in our lives.

Question 88

Who created the locus of control theory?

Answer 88

Rotter (1966)

Question 89

What two studies is social support seen in?

Answer 89

Asch. (RESISTING CONFORMITY)

In Asch’s study on unanimity, it was found that a dissenting confederate provides social support as they are not following the majority.
This allows the naïve participant to be free and follow their own conscience.
(This dissent gives rise to more dissent as it breaks majority unanimity)

Milgram. (RESISTING OBEDIENCE)

In one of Milgram’s variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate.
This disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.

Question 90

What is at both ends of the LOC continuum?

Answer 90

• High internal LOC
• High external LOC

Question 91

What does having an external LOC mean?

Answer 91

People with an external LOC tend to believe that things that happen are out of their control.

Question 92

What does having an internal LOC mean?

Answer 92

People with an internal LOC tend to believe that they can ultimately control what happens to them.

Question 93

Is someone definitely internal or external.

Answer 93

NO.
The LOC is a continuum or binary, it is presented as a scale meaning that individuals may vary in their position on it.
On opposite ends are high external and high internal, in-between someone may be low external or low internal (moderate) etc…

Question 94

What LOC standing is most likely to resist social influence?

Answer 94

• A high internal LOC.
  These people are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey.
  If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they tend to base decisions from their own beliefs rather than the majority’s.

Another explanation is that high internal LOC individuals tend to be more self-confident, more aspirational and higher in intellect.
These traits may explain greater resistance to social influence.

Question 95

Evaluate social support in resistance to social influence.

Answer 95

• Real-world research support.
  There is research evidence for the positive effects of social support.
  A psychologist evaluated an eight week program to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided from a slightly older mentor or ‘buddy’. At the end of the program adolescents who had a ‘buddy’ were much less likely to smoke compared to a control group of participants without one.
  This supports the notion that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of real world intervention :)
• Research support from dissenting peers
  There is research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resistance to obedience. In one study, participants were told to produce evidence that could be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. Researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than previously found by Milgram in his.
  This was attributed to the fact that participants were in groups so they could discuss what they were told to do. 88% rebelled against their orders. This promotes the idea that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining legitimacy of an authority figure.

Question 96

Evaluate locus of control in resistance to social influence.

Answer 96

• Research support
  There is evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. In a repetition of Milgram’s baseline study participants were measured to see if they were internal or external on the LOC. The psychologist found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level, whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. To simplify, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation. This demonstrates that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation for disobedience.
• Contradictory research.
  There is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance. A psychologist analyzed data from American locus of control studies. The data showed that, over a time span, people became more resistant to obedience, meanwhile, becoming more external - a surprising outcome. If resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal rather than external. This challenges the validity of locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence.

Question 97

What is minority influence?

Answer 97

A form of social influence in which a minority group can persuade others (usually from the majority group) to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviors.
This often leads to internalization or conversion (where beliefs are altered privately as well as public beliefs)

Question 98

What are the 3 main processes in minority influence?

Answer 98

• Consistency
• Commitment
• Flexibility

Question 99

How can you distinguish between conformity and minority influence?

Answer 99

Conformity is where the majority are doing the influencing, minority influence is where the minority is influencing.

Question 100

What is meant by consistency in minority influence?

Answer 100

The minority maintain the same beliefs both over time and between all individuals that form the minority.

Question 101

What is synchronic consistency?

Answer 101

Synchronic consistency is where the minority group will all be unified in their belief.

Question 102

What is diachronic consistency?

Answer 102

Diachronic consistency is where the minority group will maintain the same view over a long period of time.

Question 103

Why is consistency effective in minority influence?

Answer 103

Consistency is effective as it draws attention to the minority view.

Question 104

What is meant by commitment in minority influence?

Answer 104

Commitment is where the minority will demonstrate their dedication to their cause.

Question 105

Why is commitment effective in minority influence?

Answer 105

It allows the majority to recognize that the minority are not performing actions out of self interest.

Question 106

What is meant by flexibility in minority influence?

Answer 106

Flexibility is where the minority will adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter-arguments.

Question 107

Why is flexibility effective in minority influence?

Answer 107

Being flexible and open to compromise reduces the appearance that they are rigid and dogmatic (if they only use consistency)

Question 108

What is the augmentation principle?

Answer 108

Classified as a form of commitment, the augmentation principle is where individuals will put themselves in situations of danger to emphasize their dedication.

Question 109

What is deeper processing?

Answer 109

Deeper processing is where the minorities actions force others to consider the cause deeply, analyzing the unjustness etc…

Question 110

What does the snowball effect explain?

Answer 110

It explains the process of change.

Question 111

Define the snowball effect.

Answer 111

Conversion will occur from deeper processing in the majority.
Over time, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position.
This gains traction - the more this happens the faster the rate of conversion.
Eventually, the minority view has become the majority view and a social change has occurred.

Question 112

Outline Moscovici blue/green slide study.

Answer 112

• Moscovici demonstrated minority influence.
• 6 women were asked to view a set of blue-colored slides that varied in brightness.
• They were asked to state whether the slide was green or blue
• 2/6 of these women were confederates who consistently said that the slides were green (consistent minority)
• From this, the true participants increased their wrong answers.
• In a second study:
• Participants were exposed to an inconsistent minority.
• The confederates said blue 12 times and green 24 times.
• From this, agreement with the green answer declined substantially.
• In a third variant with no confederates…
• The answer was wrongly stated green below 1% of the time.

Question 113

Evaluate minority influence.

Answer 113

• Research evidence: Importance of consistency.
  There is research that outlines the importance of consistency. Moscovici in the blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing others views than an inconsistent opinion. In a meta-analysis of similar studies, it was found that minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential. This suggests that presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority attempting to influence the majority.
• Research support for deeper processing
  There is evidence suggesting that a change in the majorities opinion DOES involve deeper processing. Participants heard either the majority or a minority group agree with a certain viewpoint and this was always followed by a conflicting view. If participants has listened to the minority group agree with the first view then they were much less likely to change their opinions to support the conflicting view. This would suggest that those who heard the agreement from the minority group had processed it in a deeper way and this view was then more long-lasting. This gives support for the central argument that minority influence causes deeper processing.
• Artificial tasks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY.
  A limitation of minority influence research is that tasks involved are often artificial. This includes Moscovici’s color identification task. Research into this, therefore, is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the majorities behavior in real life settings. In real life, minority influence can operate in court situations where jury decision making and political campaigning can have important consequences. This means findings of minority influence studies are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they reveal about minority influence in real-world social situations.
• Studies make unnecessary distinction
  studies are often set up to make a very clear distinction between the majority and the minority. Many would argue that this is a strength of such research because it is down to a high level of control. However, in a real-life setting, it is often a lot more complex. For example, it usually isn’t just numbers that determine who the majority and minority are. The majority group often more power and the minority have to be committed as they face a strong opposition. This means that the way that research into minority influence is carried out is often very simplistic and tells us little about it in a real-world setting.

Question 114

Define social influence.

Answer 114

The process by which individuals and social groups change each others attitudes and behaviors.
This consists of: conformity, obedience and minority influence.

Question 115

Define social change.

Answer 115

When all societies, rather than just individuals, change to adopt new attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.
(Examples: women’s suffrage, gay rights and environmental concerns)

Question 116

Name the processes involved in social change.
(LESSONS FROM SOCIAL CHANGE)

Answer 116

• Drawing attention
• Consistency
• Deeper processing
• Augmentation principle
• The snowball effect
• Social crypto-amnesia.

Question 117

What is drawing attention in social change.
Give examples.

Answer 117

Drawing attention to a situation with social proof.
Examples of this is the US civil rights marches that drew attention to the cause, offering social proof of the problem.

Question 118

What is social crypto-amnesia

Answer 118

Where people have memory that a change has occurred, however, they cannot identify how it happened.
This means they have no memory of the events that led to change.

Question 119

Outline lessons from conformity research.

Answer 119

• Asch’s study into conformity highlights the importance of dissent in social influence.
  Dissent breaks unanimity of the majority, encouraging others to follow through offering social support - this means that it has the power to lead to social change.
• On an alternate note, conformity research into NSI suggests that campaigners may exploit conformity processes through appealing to NSI.
  Like anti-littering campaigns, social change can be encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are doing.

Question 120

Outline lessons from obedience research.

Answer 120

• Milgram’s research reinforces clearly the importance of disobedient models
  This can be witnessed in the variation where a separate confederate teacher refused to give shocks to the leaner, making the rate of obedience plummet.
• Zimbardo has proposed that obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment.
  Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one - this makes people essentially ‘drift’ into a new behavior.

Question 121

What does the process of gradual commitment mean
(Social influence and social change)

Answer 121

Suggested by Zimbardo, this is a psychological technique wherein an individual will be required to perform trivial and harmless tasks.
These tasks would soon escalate and the person obeying would find it increasingly difficult to disobey.

Question 122

Evaluate social influence and social change.

Answer 122

• Research support for normative social influence.
  A study in California aimed to see if they could alter peoples energy-use habits. Researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego every week for a month. The key message stated that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy, making no reference to others behaviors.
  There were significant decreases in energy usage in the first group compared to the control.
  This shows that conformity can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence - making it a valid explanation.
• Minority influence explains change
  Psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change. It is claimed that social change is due to a type of thinking that minorities inspire. When considering minority arguments, people engage in divergent thinking - deeper processing. This type of thinking is broad as opposed to narrow, meaning the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up arguments. It is argued that this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues. This shows how dissenting minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas and open minds in a manner that majorities cannot.
• Role of deeper processing.
  Deeper processing may not always play a role in how minorities bring about social change. Deeper processing suggests that some people are supposedly converted as they contemplate the minorities views on a deeper level. Psychologists may disagree, instead proposing that majority views creates deeper processing if you do not share them views. This is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think in the same way as us. When the majority believes something different, we are forced to think deeply about their arguments and reasoning. This means that this central element of minority influence is challenged, creating doubt on it’s validity as an explanation for social change.
• Barriers to social change.
  Contrary to other successful studies, there is still resistance to social change. A study showed that participants who were less likely to behave in an environmentally friendly way did so as they did not want to be associated with stereotypical minority ‘environmentalists.’ They described environmental activists in a negative way, referring to them as ‘tree-huggers’. Despite this resistance, researchers were still able to suggest ways in which minorities can overcome these barriers to social change. This means that from social feedback, practical advice can be given to minority groups in their attempts to alter the majorities opinions - such as being more flexible.

Question 123

What are the situational explanations for obedience?

Answer 123

• Agentic state (including autonomous state and binding factors)
• Legitimacy of authority (including destructive authority)

Question 124

What is the dispositional explanations for obedience?

Answer 124

• The authoritarian personality