Social Influence Flashcards

Conformity, Obediene

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Conformity

A

When individuals choose a course of action that is favoured by other group members or is socially acceptable

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

Type of Conformity- Internalisation

A
  • When you actually change your private attitudes (own thoughts).
  • Long- term change
  • Persists even when the group is not present
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the 2 main reasons that people conform?

A
  • Need to be right
  • Need to be liked
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the variations in the Asch study?

A
  • Difficulty of the task
  • Size of the majority
  • Unanimity of the majority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Procedure of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (4)

A
  1. Set up in a mock prison at Stanford University- 21 men- who tested as ‘emotionally stable’
  2. Students = randomly allocated to play the role of prisoner/ prison guard- encouraged to conform to social roles- uniforms (reflective glasses), behaviour
  3. Prisoners wore loose smock and cap- identified by a number- loss of personal identity called DE- INDIVIDUATION- more likely to conform to perceived roles.
  4. Prisoners and Guards encouraged to identify with and play their role
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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 are 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

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 became to perform specific functions found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Obedience

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

Self- preservation

A

Undesirable consequences if we don’t obey. Conditioned to obey from an early age. Rewarded for obedience, punished for defiance

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

Milgram’s Procedure (5)

A
  • When volunteer arrived they were introduced to another participants (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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Findings of Milgram’s study

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Quantitative data

A
  • To do with numbers
  • Easier to analyse- compare, graphs, mean, median, mode
  • Lacks reasons- doesn’t give reasons for participants’ behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Qualitative data

A
  • To do with word/ descriptions
  • Didn’t do it easily- were struggling
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Situational Variables affecting Obedience

A
  1. Proximity
  2. Touch- proximity
  3. Experimenter via Phone
  4. Location
  5. Uniform
32
Q

Proximity

A
  • 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
Q

Touch- proximity

A
  • 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
Q

Experimenter via Phone

A
  • 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
Q

Location

A
  • 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
Q

Uniform

A
  • 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
Q

Bickman’s study- Uniform

A
  • 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
Q

Evaluation of Milgram- Deception

A
  • Participants weren’t told the aim
  • Thought shocks were real
  • Experimenter wasn’t “real” experimenter
39
Q

Evaluation of Milgram- No Informed Consent

A
  • Didn’t consent to an obedience study, consented to a memory study
40
Q

Evaluation of Milgram- Right to withdraw

A
  • 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

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
Q

Evaluation of Milgram- Protection from harm

A
  • Really tense- clear signs of psychological harm (bite lips etc) and physical harm (seizures)
42
Q

Strength of Milgram’s study- Ecological validity

A
  • 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
Q

Weakness of Milgram’s study- Ecological validity

A
  • 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
Q

Strength of Milgram’s study- Realism

A
  • 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
Q

Weakness of Milgram’s study- Realism

A
  • Situational variations
  • More likely the participants worked out the aim- were less obedient, obedience rates fell
46
Q

DON’T NEED TO REVISE FOR THIS TEST

Is obedience the same in all cultures?

A
  • 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
Q

Can Milgram’s study explain obedience during the Holocaust?

A
  • 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
Q

Agentic state

A

Someone makes decisions for you

49
Q

Autonomous state

A

Acting independently

50
Q

How do we recognise authority figures?

A
  • We create social hierachies
  • We give power
  • Then we enter the agentic state
51
Q

Binding factors- why do we remain in the agentic state?

A
  • Social etiquette- defying the authority figure will appear rude and will incur embarrassing consequences/ will be conflict
52
Q

Evaluation of the agentic shift as an explanation of obedience

A
  • 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
Q

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?

A
  • 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
Q

Evaluation of the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience
How do Milgram’s variations support the legitimacy of authority explanation?

A
  • 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
Q

Can/should the legitimacy of authority be used as an explanation/excuse for war crimes?

A
  • 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
Q

Authoritarian Personality

A
  • 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
Q

Strength of Authoritarian personality and obedience- Elms and Milgram

A
  • 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
Q

Strength of an Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience- Altemeyer

A
  • 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
Q

Weakness of Authoritarian personality- F- Scale

A
  • 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
Q

Weakness- Adorno’s research

A
  • 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
Q

Weakness- Nazi Germany

A
  • 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
Q

Resisting pressure to conform- social support

A
  • 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
Q

Role of social support- resisting the pressure to obey- studies

A
  • 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
Q

Locus of control and resisting social influence

A
  • High internals perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and therefore take responsibility for their behaviour
  • High externals see their behaviour as being caused by external factors such as luck
  • High internals will actively seek information rather than rely on the opinions of others- more likely to be successful
65
Q

Locus of control- research support

A
  • 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
Q

Contradictory research

A
  • Limitation is evidence 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 resitant to obedience but also more external
  • If resistance is linked to an internal Locus of Control then it would have been expected- 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
Q

Conformity to minority influence

A
  • 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 amongst others previously part of the majority
68
Q

DON’T NEED FOR THIS TEST

Conversion theory- Moscovici- 1980

A
  • Individual is exposed to a minority’s argument, creates conflict
  • Individuals are motivated to resolve conflicts
  • Therefore 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 they hold 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
Q

When are minorities successful at changing the majority’s view?

A
  • Consistency
  • Commitment
  • Flexibility
70
Q

Consistency

A
  • When minorities are consistent in their viewpoints
  • Majority members are motivated to consider their 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
Q

Commitment

A
  • 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
Q

Flexibility

A
  • 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
Q

COME BACK TO

Blue- green slides- Moscovici

A
  • 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
Q

Social change

A
  • When society as a whole adopts a new belief or way of behaving that then widely becomes accepted as the norm
75
Q

How does social influence research explain social change brought about by minority groups?

In short “How social influence leads to social change?”

A

Necessary conditions needed:
1. Drawing attention to the issue:
- 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.

  1. 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)
  2. The role of conflict
    - We think deeply about the issues and examine the minorities arguments (ISI)
    - Snow- ball effect- More and more people join majority- exponential growth
    - Leads to crypto- amnesia- Can’t remember when things were different/ what they were like before
  3. 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