Social Influence Flashcards
Conformity, Obediene
1
Q
Conformity
A
When individuals choose a course of action that is favoured by other group members or is socially acceptable
2
Q
Type of Conformity- Compliance
A
- When you go along with the majority to gain their approval or to avoid their disapproval.
- Public compliance does not lead to private attitude change.
- Short term change
3
Q
Type of Conformity- Internalisation
A
- When you actually change your private attitudes (own thoughts).
- Persists even when the group is not present
- Long- term change
4
Q
Type of Conformity- Identification
A
- When you go along with others because you have accepted their point of view but only because of a desire to be like them.
- We privately and publicly accepted their view point BUT only while the group is present
- Short term change
5
Q
What are the 2 main reasons that people conform?
A
- Need to be right
- Need to be liked
6
Q
Normative Social Influence (NSI) (7)
A
- Need to be liked
- Explains compliance
- Conform to a group because we want to fit in
- Fear of rejection makes us publicly express the majority’s point of view
- Privately we have not really accepted this point of view
- Aware of ‘group norms’- we have a desire to be accepted rather than rejected
- EMOTIONAL process
7
Q
Evaluation of NSI and How do the studies provide evidence for NSI?
A
- Linkenbach + Perkins- Adolescents were exposed to the message that the majority of their age peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking
- Schultz- hotel guests were exposed to the message that 75% of guests that reused their towels each day reduced their own towel use by 25%
- (Change our behaviour to fit in with the majority- follow what everyone is using/ doing)
8
Q
Informational Social Influence (ISI) (7)
A
- Need to be right
- Explains Internalisation
- Go along with others because we believe them to be right
- More pronounced if we think the group has better information than us
- Change both private and public attitudes
- COGNITIVE process
- More likely in: - ambiguous situations, crisis situations, when we believe others to be experts
9
Q
Evaluation of ISI
A
- Lucas found that when students were asked answers to mathematical problems, there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when the problems were more difficult. (Think everyone knows more than you- go along with what everyone else is saying)
- Jenness found that individuals’ private estimates of how many jellybeans were in a jar moved towards the group estimate after a group discussion
10
Q
Conformity Key Study: Asch (7)
A
- Vision test
- Groups of participants were shown 3 lines of different lengths
- All but one of the participants were confederates of Asch
- On 12 of the 18 trials the confederates all gave the wrong answer
- Real participant always gave his answer last- see how he would react
- 36.8% of the responses made by the true participants were incorrect (they conformed to the incorrect responses made by the confederates
- ¼ of the participants never conformed
11
Q
What are the variations in the Asch study?
A
- Difficulty of the task
- Size of the majority
- Unanimity of the majority
12
Q
Difficulty of the task
A
- Task is made more difficult
- Conformity increases
- ISI Pressure increases
- Participants not sure so think group knows more
13
Q
Size of the majority
A
- Little conformity when the majority consisted of one or two individuals
- Conformity levels jumped to 30% with a majority of 3 (doesn’t increase further than this)
- NSI pressure of group and fitting in with the group
14
Q
Unanimity of the majority
A
- When real participant was given the support of another real participants conformity levels dropped to 5.5%
- Drop in conformity was also present if one confederate gave an answer that was different to the majority but also different to the real/ correct answer
- NSI reduced- if you have social support- less likely to conform
15
Q
Weakness of Asch (Artificial situation and task) (5)
A
- Task and situation were artificial
- Participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with the demand characteristics
- Task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and there was no reason to conform
- E.g Susan Fiske said ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’- i.e they did not really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life.
- Means the findings do not generalise to real- world situations
16
Q
Weakness of Asch (Cultural differences in conformity) (5)
A
- Participants were American men
- Other research suggests women may be more conformist- concerned about social relationships + being accepted
- US is an individualist culture (people are more concerned about themselves rather than the social group)
- Conformity studies conducted in collectivist culture e.g China have found that conformity rates are higher
- Means Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures.
17
Q
Procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
A
- Set up in a mock prison at Stanford University- 21 men- who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
- Students = randomly allocated to play the role of prisoner/ prison guard- encouraged to conform to social roles- uniforms (reflective glasses), behaviour
- Prisoners wore loose smock and cap- identified by a number- loss of personal identity called DE- INDIVIDUATION- more likely to conform to perceived roles.
- Prisoners and Guards encouraged to identify with and play their role
18
Q
Findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)
A
- Harrased prisoners to show them they were powerless- e.g conducted frequent headcounts
- Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce rules + administer punishments
- After the rebellion (barricaded themselves in prison)- prisoners were subdued, depressed, anxious. 1 was released (psychological disturbance. 1 went on hunger strike)
- Guard behaviour became brutal and aggressive (used fire extinguishers on them). Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of the intended 14 days
19
Q
Conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (2)
A
- Social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals’ behaviour. Guards became brutal, prisoners were submissive
- Social roles were easily taken on. Volunteers who came to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
20
Q
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (right to withdraw?)
A
- Didn’t have right to withdraw during the study
- E.g During brutal conditions of guards harassing the prisoners they weren’t allowed to leave
- Shows although the guards were conforming to their social role they behaved harshly towards the prisoners
21
Q
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (how ethical was it?)
A
- Aspects of it were ethical- participants signed a consent form
- E.g Zimbardo asked the ASA to conduct an ethics evaluation and the association concluded that all of the existing ethical guildlines had been followed
- Made sure all participants were aware of what this psychological study would consist of
ASA- American Standard Association
22
Q
Strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (control over key variables?)
A
- Control over key variables
- E.g Zimbardo was able to choose a random selection of people
- Meant that those who were emotionally stable were picked to be either prisoners or guards
- Amount of control Zimbardo had over the variables, increased the internal validity
23
Q
Weakness of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (researchers argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them)
A
- Researchers argued that the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them
- E.g Prisoners were always talking about prison life
- SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards IRL giving it a high amount of internal validity
SPE- Stanford Prison Experiment
24
Q
Conformity to social roles: Zimbardo’s Prison study (4)
A
- Roles we play as members of different social groups
- Include expectations how we are expected to behave in that role
- As a society we have agreed standards of behaviour that we expect from different social roles- conform to these expectations
- SPE tested how powerful this type of social influence is- looked at guards and prisoners
25
Obedience
- **Giving** up our **responsibility** to **make decisions** and **allowing others** to **decide** how we **should behave**.
- **Choice** of whether to **comply** with a **direct order from a person of higher status** or to **defy the order**
26
Self- preservation
Undesirable consequences if we don't obey. Conditioned to obey from an early age. Rewarded for obedience, punished for defiance
27
Milgram's Procedure (5)
- When volunteer arrived they were introduced to **another participant** (CONFEDERATE of Milgram. Drew lots of Teacher and Learner- it was fixed as the **participants** was always the **teacher**)
- Aim was to **assess obedience** in a **situation** where an **authority figure** (Experimenter) **ordered** the **participants** (Teacher) to give an **increasingly strong (fake) shock to learner**
- Learner was strapped into chair and **wired up to electrodes**, teacher was given a **small shock** (only genuine shock)
- Learner had to **remember pair of words + every time he made an error, the teacher delivered a stronger fake shock**
- Teacher got to **300V**, learner **didn't respond** and there was a **silence** at **315V**
28
Findings of Milgram's study
- **12.5%** (5 participants) stopped at **300V** (intense shock)
- **65**% continued to **highest level** of **450V** (fully obedient)
- He collected **qualitative data** including observations- signs of **extreme tension, sweat, stutter, bite lips**
29
Quantitative data
- To do with numbers
- Easier to analyse- compare, graphs, mean, median, mode
- Lacks reasons- doesn't give reasons for participants' behaviour
30
Qualitative data
- To do with word/ descriptions
- Didn't do it easily- were struggling
31
Situational Variables affecting Obedience
1. Proximity
2. Touch- proximity
3. Experimenter via Phone
4. Location
5. Uniform
32
Proximity
- Participant and learner in the **same room**- obedience **fell to 40%**
- **Obedience decreases, empathy increases**
- See **results** of **actions**, **take responsibility**, feel **guilt removal of "buffers"**- **protects** us from **consequences of actions**
33
Touch- proximity
- Participants had to **force learner's hand onto shock plate**- obedience rate **decreased by 30%**
- **Obedience decreases, empathy increases**
- Remain in the **autonomous state** (making an independent decision)
34
Experimenter via Phone
- Experimenter gave orders by phone- 20(.5)% obedience
- Threat of consequence is **lowered**- authority figure wasn't in the room
- Acting in an autonomous state (making an independent decision)
35
Location
- Location changed to **run- down building- obedience fell to 48%** (legitimate authority- Yale- authority figure)
- In an **agentic state** (allowing someone to make decisions for you)- acting as an agent
- **Run- down building doesn't have authoritative state- more likely to act autonomously**
- Yale- prestigious location- you would trust the institution- **allow authority figure to take control of our actions**
36
Uniform
- Experimenter 'called away', **role of experimenter taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes**- obedience dropped to **20%**
- Original study- experimenter wearing a **lab coat- clothes show authority**- portrays **legitimate authority**- agentic state- **less likely to obey**
37
Bickman's study- Uniform
- Bickman used 3 male actors dressed in normal clothes, a milkman or as a security guard
- Actors asked passersby to pick up a paper bag that had been thrown in the street
- Passersby were MOST likely to obey the actor dressed as a security guard and LEAST likely to obey the actor in normal clothes
38
Evaluation of Milgram- Deception
- Participants **weren't told the aim**
- Thought **shocks were real**
- Experimenter **wasn't "real" experimenter**
39
Evaluation of Milgram- No Informed Consent
- Didn't **consent** to an **obedience study**, **consented** to a **memory study**
40
Evaluation of Milgram- Right to withdraw
- At the beginning, participants were told they had the right to withdraw, but when they wanted to leave they were encouraged to stay- the 4 prods
## Footnote
Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
41
Evaluation of Milgram- Protection from harm
- Really tense- clear signs of psychological harm (bite lips etc) and physical harm (seizures)
42
Strength of Milgram's study- Ecological validity
- Explain **obedience** in the **army**
- Explain **police behaviour**- **restrain people**
- Explain what **happened in Nazi Germany**- Hitler's Army had a **distinct uniform- in close proximity**
43
Weakness of Milgram's study- Ecological validity
- Many people reject the obedience alibi- people were just obeying
- Went on for an 1hr was very quick
- Participant doesn't have to think- talk to someone else
- WW2- 5/6 years- lots of time for Nazis to think about this- obedience can't explain what happened in Nazi Germany
44
Strength of Milgram's study- Realism
- Asked for it stop
- In extreme distress- had lots of symptoms
- Relieved when it was finished
- In follow- up questionnaire- majority said they felt extreme pain
45
Weakness of Milgram's study- Realism
- Situational variations
- More likely the participants worked out the aim- were less obedient, obedience rates fell
46
# DON'T NEED TO REVISE FOR THIS TEST
Is obedience the same in all cultures?
- Obedience rate of 90% of Spanish students
- Australia 16% obedience- cultural difference in who we see as a legitimate authority/ authority figures- which is why obedience is low
- Germany 85% obedience- in most individualist cultures we can get high rates of obedience
47
Can Milgram's study explain obedience during the Holocaust?
- It can explain obedience during Holocaust
- Uniform- Milgram- lab coat
- Proximity- Nazi's were close, victims were taken away to concentration camp- further away- more likely to obey
- Location- Hitler's ideology is similar to prestigious Yale University
48
Agentic state
Someone makes decisions for you
49
Autonomous state
Acting independently
50
How do we recognise authority figures?
- We create social hierachies
- We give power
- Then we enter the agentic state
51
Binding factors- why do we remain in the agentic state?
- **Social etiquette**- **defying** the **authority figure will appear rude** and will **incur embarrassing consequences/ will be conflict**
52
Evaluation of the agentic shift as an explanation of obedience
- Blass and Schmitt showed a **film of Milgram's study to students** and asked them **who was responsible for the HARM to the learner**
- The **students blamed the experimenter**
- The **experimenter had legitimate authority** because he was at the **top of the hierachy** suggesting **participants** would have **entered the agentic state**
53
Milgram's participants experienced no more than half an hour in the lab and were subjected to constant pressure. Is this a true reflection of what happened in Nazi Germany?
- Can't explain what happened in Nazi Germany
- Can't have stayed in an agentic state for 6 years, have to have acted autonomously
- Nazi Germans weren't just acting as agents for Hitler
54
Evaluation of the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
How do Milgram's variations support the legitimacy of authority explanation?
- Uniform- rates of obedience increased when the experimenter wore a lab coat rather than when members of the public wore normal clothes
- Location- obedience increased when the experiment was done at Yale Uni rather than at a run- down building- obedience decreased (Yale- prestigious)
- Proximity- when participants see results of actions, obedience decreases. Closer we are to legitimate authority figure, obedience increases
55
Can/should the legitimacy of authority be used as an explanation/excuse for war crimes?
- No- don't accept legitimacy of authority in Nazi Germany
- Mandel described 1 incident of WW2 involving German Reserve Police Battalion
- Men shot many civilians in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so (behaved autonomously)
56
Authoritarian Personality
- Require very little pressure in order to obey
- Are rigid thinkers who obey authority- see the world as black and white
- Very conscious of their own and other's status
- Fixed and distinctive stereotypes of other groups
- Prejudiced against other groups
- Raised by parents with an authoritarian parenting style (Frustration towards parents but can't show frustration to them- so have anger towards everyone else- displacement)
57
Strength of Authoritarian personality and obedience- Elms and Milgram
- Strength- is supported by Elms and Milgram
- Those who were very obedient got a much higher score on the F- Scale than disobedient participants
- Completed Milgram's study- highly obedient and were told to take F- scale test too- got a high score
- Shows those who went on Milgram's study had a more authoritarian personality
- Supports relationship between A.P and O
58
Strength of an Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience- Altemeyer
- Strength of an authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience is that Altemeyer reported that participants with an authoritarian personality type gave higher shocks than those without the personality type
- Them being naturally obedient would have been more obliged to listen to legitimate authority
- Shows link between having an authoritarian personality and obedience
59
Weakness of Authoritarian personality- F- Scale
- Weakness- F- scale can be criticised
- F- scale measuing by tendancy to agree to everything (acquiescence bias)
- Isn't a good measure of authoritarian personality- possible to get a high score just by agreeing- doesn't provide good evidence for authoritarian personality
60
Weakness- Adorno's research
- Weakness of Adorno's research- interviewer bias
- Based on interviews carried out after participants had completed F-Scale
- Knew which participants were rated as a authoritarian personality leading to interviwer bias
- Not a good supporting evidence for study
61
Weakness- Nazi Germany
- Weakness- can't use authoritarian personality to explain behaviour in Nazi Germany
- Unreasonnable explanation because it is highligh unlikely everyone in Nazi Germany had an authoritarian persnality
- Not a good explanation because very unlikely every person in a country has the same personality and is not a good explanation of obedience
62
Resisting pressure to conform- social support (6)
- **Presence** of **one ally** lead to a **FALL in conformity rates**
- Other person acts as a **model** and allows us to act **independently**
- **Valid social support** (someone you like/admire) has **more** of an **effect** than **invalid social support**
- Ally **breaks** the **normative social influence**
- Ally makes the individual feel **more confident** in their **own assessment** of the **situation** (less conformity, more trustworthy)
- Effect is **short lived**
63
Role of social support- resisting the pressure to obey- studies
- Milgram's variations- obedience rates **dropped to 10%** when the participants were **joined by 2 dissenting confederates** (lowest rate of obedience)
- Mullen found that when **disobedient models broke the law** by **crossing the road illegally**, participants were **more likely to cross the road themselves**, showing that **social support increases the likelihood of disobedience**
64
Locus of control and resisting social influence
- Locus of control is **how much a person believes** that they have **control** over **events** that **happen in their lives**.
- High internals *perceive themselves* as having a **great deal of personal control** over their **behaviour** and therefore **take *responsibility* for their behaviour**
- High internals will **actively seek information** rather than **rely on the opinions of others**- **more likely to be successful**
- High externals *see their behaviour* as being caused by **external factors such as luck**
65
Locus of control- research support
- Holland replicated Milgram's study and found that **37% of internals** did **not continue to the highest level of shock**, whereas **23% of externals** did **not continue**
- Takes **responsibility** of their **actions**- **less likely to enter the agentic state**
66
Contradictory research (5)
- Limitation is that there is evidence that **challenges *Locus of Control* and *Resistance***
- Twenge analysed data from ***American Locus of Control studies*** conducted over a **40- year period**
- Data shows that **people** became **more resistant to obedience** but also **more external**
- If **resistance** is **linked** to an **internal Locus of Control** then it would have been **expected** that people became **internal**
- Suggets **Locus of Control** is **NOT** a **valid explanation** of how people **resist social influence**
Social norms around obedience has changed a lot which can explain why we are less obedient
67
Conformity to minority influence
- **Persuasive minority** can also have a **POWERFUL influence**- *minority CONFORMS with majority*
- **Minorities** that are **active, organised and consistent** can create **uncertainty amongst members of the majority**
- When **minority** takes place (long term- slow process), there must be a **conversion (changing their private beliefs) amongst others PREVIOUSLY part of the majority**
68
# ***
Conversion theory- Moscovici- 1980
- **Individual** is **exposed** to a **minority's argument**, creates **CONFLICT**
- Individuals are **motivated** to **resolve conflicts**
- Therefore individual **examines** the **minority's opinion** in order to **understand** it
- **Focus** is on the **content** of the **minority's message**, in attempt to **understand** why the **minority hold their views**
- Likely to lead to internalisation of the message
- Unlike majority influence where an individual adjusts their opinion to fit with others, there is no analysis of the message or internalisation
69
When are minorities successful at changing the majority's view?
- Consistency
- Commitment
- Flexibility
70
Consistency
- When **minorities** are **consistent** in their **viewpoints**
- **Majority members** are **MOTIVATED** to **CONSIDER** the minorities' **message** in order to **UNDERSTAND** who the **minority** are **willing** to **CONSISTENTLY** hold a **differing attitude** (both over time- diachronic, all group members say the same thing- synchronic)
71
Commitment
- If the **minority** can **show commitment** to their **cause**
- The **majority members** will be **MOTIVATED** to **CONSIDER** why the **minority** are **WILLING** to put themselves at **risk** for their **beliefs**
72
Flexibility
- The minority must be seen as **non- dogmatic, flexible and willing** to **compromise** in thier **viewpoints** in order to **NEGOTIATE** with the **majority**
| Dogamtic- forecful with views
73
Blue- green slides- Moscovici
- Group of **6 people** were asked to **view a set of 36 blue- coloured slides** that **varied in intensity** and then state whether the **slides** were **blue or green**
- In each group there were **2 confederates** who ***CONSISTENTLY*** said the slides were **green**
- **True participants** gave the same **wrong answer** (green) on **8.42%** of **trials**- **AGREED** with confederates
- SECOND group of participants were **exposed** to an **inconsistent minority** (confederates said **'green' 24 times and 'blue' 12 times**)
- **Agreement** with the answer **'green' fell to 1.25%**
- THIRD control group- **NO confederates**
- All participants had to do was **identify colour of each slide**
- Got this wrong on just **0.25%**
- This supports **minority** has to be **consistent**
74
Social change
- When **society** as a **whole** **adopts a new belief** or way of **behaving** that then **widely becomes accepted as the norm**
75
How does social influence research explain social change brought about by minority groups?
| In short "How social influence leads to social change?"
Necessary conditions needed:
1. Drawing attention to the issue:
- E.g Doing protests
If protests weren't done there wouldn't be any societal change and we wouldn't have been made aware of the situation
- If our attention is drawn to views that are different from our own this causes a conflict within the individual themself.
2. Consistency:
- Minority must be consistent, committed and non- dogmatic in their views to bring about attitude change
- We are less likely to take a minority seriously if they are not consistent- loose trust
- Not acting out of self- interest (they have to do it because they genuinely believe it)
3. The role of conflict
- We think deeply about the issues and examine the minorities arguments (ISI)
- Snow- ball effect- More and more people join minority- exponential growth
- Leads to crypto- amnesia- Can't remember when things were different/ what they were like before
4. Augmentation principle
- If the minority expose themselves to risk we are more likely to take their views seriously
- Minorities that subject themselves to abuse/ show they are willing to suffer for their views, their position is strengthened or augmented
- As a result more likely to bring about social change
