Social influence Flashcards
obedience
a form of socail infuence follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a person of authority, who has the power to punish when obedience isnt in place
e.g. teacher, parent, police
milgram’s research on obedience
aim
milgram wanted to find out why the german population obeyed hitler during the holocaust
he wanted to know if germans obey more than others
zimbardo’s research on confirmity
focuses on how people conform to the expectations that people have of us
these arise from the roles we play in society which are powerful influeces on our behaviour
social roles
parts people play as members of society
e.g. parent, best friend, teacher
these come with expectations that we and others have about what is appropriate behavior within our roles
internal validity
refers to whether the observed effect on our dv is due to the manipulation of our IV and not anything else
conformity
a form of social influence involving a change in belif or behaviour in order to fit in with a group. This change is in responce to real (involving the pressure of social norms/ expectations) group pressure
types of social influence
normative
informational
note: in exams pick one even if it could be both
normative social influence
conforming due to the desire to be liked - we conform to fit in with the group becuase we don’t want to appear foolish or be left out
e.g. swearing, copying style, vaping, makeup
informational social influence
conforming due to the desire to be right - we conform becuase we are unsure of the situation so we look to others who we belive may have more info than us
e.g. following s crowd in the train station
types of conformity
compliance
internalisation
identification
these depnd on whether the person chnages their view only in public or b
types of conformity
compliance
a superficial/ temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view but privately disagree. The change in behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us because we want to fit in
types of conformity
internalisation
a deep type of conformity where we take on the majority view as we accept it as correct. It leads to acceptance of the group’s point of view both publically and privately so change their behaviour even when the group is absent
types of conformity
identification
a moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as a group because we value it and want to be a part of it of it but we dont necessarily agree with belifs of the majority
e.g. gang culture, veganism
3 main researches
asch’s on conformity
zimbardo’s on obediance
milgram’s on obedience
asch’s variations
variations named on spec
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
ecological validity
the ability to generalise our findings from the research setting to other settings i.e. in every day life
setting
population validity
the ability to generalise our findings from the ppts to othe people (target popualtion)
sample
historical validity
the ability to generalise our findings from the study to other times i.e. presnst day
time
zimardo
where
- mock prison in basment of stanford uni
zimardo
what real-life situattion is suggested to resemble the experiment
abu ghraib 2003
zimardo
roles
guard & prisoner
zimardo
how were roles enforced
karki unifroms, whistle
number, chain on feet, mock arrest from home
zimardo
zimardo’s role
observer, prison warden
zimardo
hwo were ppts given right to withdraw
if they had a mental breakdown, medical reasons
zimardo
why did he stop
his gf made him realise that it was causeing him to change for the worse, threatened to leave him
milgram’s research on obedience
ethics
- deception
- violation of right to withdraw
- lack of informed consent
- faliture to protect from physical/ phycological harm
milgram’s research on obedience
deception
naive ppts were told they were partaking in a memory test, they thought they were giving real shocks
they could leave, realism, avoids demand characteiscs, debreifed
milgram’s research on obedience
violation of right to withdraw
4 prods
they could leave, realsim of obedience in a situation
milgram’s research on obedience
lack of informed consent
not telling them that mr wallice wasnt real
prevents demand characterics
milgram’s research on obedience
faliure to protect from physical/ phycological harm
3 teahers had uncontrollable seziers, stress guilt
85% reported to have been happy to take part in the study
milgram’s research on obedience
where
YALE uni
milgram’s research on obedience
“task”
word pair
milgram’s variations
intro
- like asch, milgram wanted to see how levelswould change if he changed something about his original experiment ( a new IV)
- he belived obedience was more dependant on exteral factors ( thinngs in the enviromet) than internal factors like personality/ perception
milgram’s variations
3 situational variables
proximity
location
uniform
milgram’s variations
note
the resukts from milgrams variations were used to develop an explantation for obedience situational variables
‘situational variables’ is one explanatio for why people obey
two types of Q’s
- ‘ outline and evaluate milgrams variatopns in obedience research’
- ‘ outline and evaluate situational variatopns as an explanation for obedience ‘
milgram’s varitations
proximity
- the physical closness or distance of an authoratiy figure to the person they are giving an order to
Findings:
when the authority figure was out of the room giving orders obedience dropped from 65 to 20.5%
when the learner was in the same room as the ppt, obedience dropped from 65 to 40%
Conclusions:
the more proximity between teacher and authoeirty figure the more likely the ppt will go all the way
milgram’s varitations
Location
the place where the oder is issued - the status/ prestige associated with the location
milgram replicated his study in a run down office as opposed to yale university
findings:
47.5% obeyed in a less prestegous envirment
conclusion:
the less prestegeous the location, the lower the obedience
milgram’s varitations
uniform
the outfit that is symbolic to one’s authority
this indicates to the rest of us who is enitled to expect obedience
- original uniform was the white lab coat
- in variation, a normal member of the public in ‘everyday’ clothes played the experimenter
findings:
20% went all the way, most change, significant
conclusions:
lacl of uniform decreases obedience rates
milgram’s varitations evaluation
Reasearch support
Bickman (1974)
- got 3 confederates to dress in different outfits
- jaket and tie
- milkman
- security guard unifomr
they stood on the side of the street and asked people to complete a seires of tasks e.g. picking up litter
people were twice as likely to obey teh man dressed as a secuiirty gaurd than the jacket and tie
+ field experiment so less demand charactareistcs, antural envi so high ecological validty
milgram’s research: consistent results so high reliability due to replication
situatioal variables: high validity as proves theory
milgram’s varitations evaluation
High control of variables
- in milgram’s variations we only changed one factor (situatioal variables) at a time
- doing this he used 1000 ppts in total
- high control over variables = increased internal validity
- 100 ppts = high replicability = high reliability
milgram’s varitations evaluation
demand characteistcs
orne and holland argued that many ppts worked out the experiment was fake due to the extra manipulation of more variables e.g. mr wallice in the room
perry 2013 listened to the tapes and heard ppts doubt the shocks were real
changed beaviour- less internal validity
∴ if milgram’s research lacks validity, then as an explanation for obedience that came from it situational variables lacks validity too
Legitimacy of authority
for a person to shift to shift to the agentic state (and thereofre obey) they must percieve legitimacy of authority
an explanation of obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we percive to have authority over us
this authority is justified by the person’s position of power within a social heirachy
- we accept some people have authority to allow society to function properly
- we are willing to give up our independance so they can exert conrol effecienlty
- e.g. milgrams study: white lab coat was a symbol
symbols of authority
the things we associate with the person giving instructions help us perciee when authoriy is legitimate or not
e.g. uniform, ties,
accessories, badge, gun, lanyard
dont confuse symbolys of authority for unifrom as situational variables
- as a situational variable just the presence of a uniform causes people to obey
- as a symbol of loa unifrom aids our cognitive processing when working out whether the authority is legitimate or not
dispositional
internal factors
situational variables
external factors
social-psychological
individual processing of external factors
dispositional explanations
not all psychologists agree that situational and social factors can explain obedience alone
not all ppts obeyed in milgram’s study, differences in personalities, disposition
the authoritarian personality
a type of personality that adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority
such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dissmisive of inferiors
Adorno 1950 developed this personality type trying to understand the obedience Nazi soilders showed towards hitler
explanation of authoritarian personality
harsh parenting- strict, descipline, expectations to be complely loyal, high standards, unconditional love for parents, even if they dont agree with them
these experiences create hostility and despair in the child - who displaces these feelings onto the ‘weak’ scapegoating
dispositional explanations for obedinece
procedure
adorno et al (1950) investigating the causes of an obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle-class white americans and thier unconscious attitudues towards other racial group
they developed an ‘F’ scale to measure the relationship between a person’s personality type and prejudiced belifs
F scale
fascist… someone who belives in a totalitarian state rule by a supreme leader who controls everything possible and treats people harshly
findings
F- scale
- those who had scored highly on the “F scale” identified with strong people and were generally contempteous of the “weak”
- they were very conscious of thier own and others status
higher scores had a particular cognitive style
- they were no grey areas between categories
- they had fixed and distinctive steryotype about other groups
- there was a strong positive correlation between authoritarian and predjudice
Locus of control
Rotter 1966
Internal
believe that they have personal control over the events in their life
external
beliebe that they have little control over the events in their lives - luck, chance, faith
internal locus
more likely to resist social influence
more likely to take responsibility for their actions whether good or bad, so are more likely to base their decision on their own beliefs
they are shown to be more self confident, achievement orientated
intelligent
Evaluation for LOC
research support - oliner and oliner 1988
interviewed two groups for non jewish people that lived through the holocaust and nazi germany
grouo 1- 406 protected and rescued
group 2 - 126 didn’t
group 1 were more likely to have an internal LOC this shows support for loc as an explanation for resistance as instructions were discovered, resisting social influence
- self report = could be lying, social desirability, approval after holocaust, protect their self image
- correlation , don’t cause = effect
weakness of loc
twenge er al 2004
analysed data from a range of american studies done on loc that were carried out over 40 years
meta analysis = when a researcher writes about studies done to come up with an overall conclusion
- they found that people became more resistant to social influence over time but also more external
evaluation: if recharge is linked to having an internal loc we would expect people to become more internal as they become more resistant
- this affects accuracy as low internal validity so therefore low explanatory power as clear explanation isn’t given ambiguous
social influence on a wider scale
when whole societies rather than just individuals adopt new attitudes belifs and ways of doing things
e.g. recycling, rights for women, gay marrige, earth orbits the sun
social change can come about via two different routes: minority inflence and majority influence
minority influence
conversion process
majority influence
obedience and conformity
steps of social change
- drawing attention to the issue: a minority can bring about social change by drawing attention of the majority to the issue
- cognitive conflict: the minority creates conflict between the majorities original views and the views advocated by the minority
- consistencey of position: the more consistent the minority are with their views over time, the more influence they will have on the majority
- the argumentation principle: if minority are willing to suffer for their views they seem committed and will be taken more seriously
- the snowball effect: the minority influence is small initially but as more and more members of the majority change their view they reach a ‘tipping point’ the point of wide-scale social change
how can a majority influence create social change
- conformity
- ## social norms, normative social influence
dispositional
internal factors
situational
external factors
dispositional explanation
psychologists dont believe that obedience can be explained by situational and social factors alone
e.g. not all ppts obeyed im milgram’s study
differences in personality-disposition
Authoritarian personality
individals who are submissibe to authority
what causes an aurthoritarian personality?
harsh parenting, high standards, discipline
these experiences create hostility and despair in the child who displaces these feelings onto the weak - scapegoating
socail identity theory
when the sense of who you are is based on the group ypu belong to
in group vs out group
explanations for resistance
LOC
social suppourt
explanations for conformity
normative
informational
explanations for obedience
situational variables
agantic state
legitimancy of authority
social support
presence of people who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others do the sane
these people act as models to show others that resistance to influence is possibke
NOTE: a model doesnt have to agree with you to show social suppourt, just the fact that they are not conforming with th majority is enough to enable someone to follow their own consience
overall breaks unanimity
social suppourt in conformity
Asch’s variations, when a confederate was instructed to give a different wrong answer to the majority vonformity dropped from 36.8% to 5.5%
this shows that the pressure of people who resist pressures to conform hwlped others do the sae as they act like models to show resistance is possible
social suppourt in obedience
milgram did a variation where the ‘teacher’ was joined by a confederate as a second teacher
when confederate was instructed to disobey obedience from ppts dropped from 65% to 10%
this shows that the presence of people who resist pressure to obeyencourages people to do the same
rotter
locus of control
an explanation for how we make sense of what directs events in our lives (how much control we have)
e.g. if you fail an exam, why do you believe it happened
internal LOC
ppl belive they have personal control over the events in their life
domino effect, reason for eveeything, salf blame
external LOC
belive that they have little personal control over the events in their lives
luck, fate, blame people around them
LOC alarm example
i was late because i forgot to set my alarm
my alarm didnt go off
LOC and resistance
those with an internal loc are more likely to resist sovial influence
they are more likely to take responsibility for tehir actions whereer good or bad, make decisions basewd on their belifs
more self-confident, achivment oridentated, intelligfent
liss likely to need social approval
meta analysis
when researcer writes about studies done to come up with an overall conclusion
Don’t confuse uniform / symbol of authority
SV- its presence is all that’s needed to cause people to obey
As a symbol of legitimacy uniform aids our cognitive processing when working out if authority is legitimate or not
