social influence

Question 1

Define social influence

Answer 1

Being influenced by other people to change your behaviour/views (conformity)
Obedience - following rules set by people
Minority influence - a minority influences the behaviour of a majority

Question 2

What are the types of conformity proposed by Kelman?

Answer 2

Internalisation, compliance, and identification

Question 3

Explain internalisation

Answer 3

The individual accepts the pov of the group publicly and privately
Believe the groups views are correct and will continue to believe them even in absence of other group members

Question 4

Explain compliance

Answer 4

Going along with others to gain approval or avoid disapproval, to fit in with the group
Do not privately agree but will publicly express behaviours that agree with the group

Question 5

Explain identification

Answer 5

Involves compliance and internalisation
Only internalising the groups views as they want to be apart of the group

Question 6

What are the 2 explanations of conformity?

Answer 6

informational and normative social influence

Question 7

Explain informational social influence

Answer 7

Occurs when we take info from others as evidence about reality.
If we are uncertain about what behaviour or beliefs are right or wrong we look to others for guidance.
Likely to occur in new or ambiguous situations
Likely to be an example of internalisation - change both their public and private attitudes.

Question 8

Evaluate informational social influence as an explanation for conformity

Answer 8

Wittenbrink showed that other people’s beliefs have an important influence on social stereotypes. When participants were exposed to negative information about African Americans and led to believe this was the view of the majority, they too reported negative beliefs about a black individual.

Individual differences can affect how people conform, e.f. in Asch’s study students were found to be the least conformist compared to other types of participants.

Question 9

Explain normative social influence

Answer 9

This is about norms for a social group. We don’t like to appear foolish and we want social approval and don’t want rejection and so our behaviour is regulated by norms.
An emotional process rather than cognitive.
Likely to occur around strangers but also friends as we want their approval

Question 10

Evaluate normative social influence as an explanation of conformity

Answer 10

Schultz found hotel guests exposed to the normative message that 75% of guests reused their towels each day, rather than requiring fresh, reduced their own towel use by 25% - showing we shape our behaviour to fit in with the group and gain social approval

In asch’s study many participants went along with what was clearly the wrong answer just because other people did. They said they felt self-conscious about giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval. When he repeated the study and got participants to write down their answer conformity rates fell - supports normative social influence

Question 11

Describe Ash’s procedure and what he found

Answer 11

123 male undergrads tested
Asked to sit around a table and look at 3 lines of different lengths
Had to compare these 3 lines to a standard line, saying which they believed to be the same length
The real participant was always the second to last to answer
The confederates were told in 12 of 18 critical trials to give the same wrong answer
Wanted to see if the real participant would stick to what they believed to be right or go along with the majority

Findings:
On the 12 critical trials the average conformity rate was 33%. Participants agreed with the confederates giving the wrong answer on average on 1/3 of the trials
Found 75% of participants conformed at least once
Interviewed participants after who had conformed and found the majority had done so through compliance. They privately continued to believe their own answer but publicly changed their behaviour to avoid social disapproval

Question 12

What are the 3 variables affecting conformity according to Asch?

Answer 12

Group size- found when the experiment had 3 confederates conformity rates rose to 31.8%, but fewer confederates didn’t affect conformity nor did more than 3

Unanimity of the majority - originally confederates unanimously gave the same wrong answer. When this changed and some gave the correct answer, conformity dropped from 33% to 5.5%. Suggests unanimity was key in conformity

Task difficulty - in one variation the task was made more difficult by reducing the length of the lines to make the answer less obvious. This led to conformity increasing - shows informational social influence. People less confident in their abilities were also more likely to conform (individual differences)

Question 13

Evaluate Asch’s research

Answer 13

Designed and conducted in 1950s in America - during the McCarthyism period (a time where people were more likely to conform) so conformity may be different in todays society. Perrin and Spencer repeated the study in UK in 1980’s with science students and found conformity did not occur. Suggests research may be outdated

Cultural differences - Smith et al (2006) found average rate of conformity in individualistic cultures was 25% compared to 37% in collectivist cultures. Suggests conformity is favoured in collectivist cultures as it binds the cultures together

Demand characteristics - participants knew they were in a research study and so may have gone along with the demands of the group. The task was trivial and so more likely to be conformed to compared to real life situations. Therefore the task by Asch cannot be generalised to measure conformity in everyday situations

Question 14

Explain Zimbardo’s procedure

Answer 14

Experiment took place at Stanford University in California where a mock prison was created.
Male student volunteers were psychologically and physically screamed and the most stable 24 were randomly assigned to play the role as a prison guard or a prisoner
Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested and when they entered they were blindfolded and given a prison uniform and referred to by ID numbers.
Guards were given a uniform, whistles, reflective sunglasses (to prevent eye contact). The study was planned to last 2 weeks

Question 15

Explain Zimbardo’s findings

Answer 15

Guards became tyrannical towards prisoners, they woke them in the middle of the night and forced them to complete degrading activities
Within 2 days prisoners rebelled against the harsh treatment. They ripped their uniformed and swore and shouted at the guards
Participants appeared to forget they were acting
Prisoners became extremely passive and 5 had to be released early due to their extreme reactions. One prisoner went on a hunger strike
After 6 days the study was terminated due to the neglect
Demonstrated that both guards and prisoners both conformed to their social roles

Question 16

Evaluate Zimbardo’s study

Answer 16

Demand characteristics - participants may have guessed what the experimenters expected of them and so their behaviour may have been influencing, suggesting they may have been influenced by powerful demand characteristics instead of actually conforming

Application to real life - similar results can be seen in Abu Ghraib, a military prison in Iraq that became known for its torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers. Zimbardo stated that guards who committed the abuse were victims of situational factors that made the abuse more likely e.g. lack of training, boredom, no accountability to a higher authority.

Lack of research support - Reicher and Haslam conducted a partial replication on the study, the BBC prison study. The findings were different from Zimbardo’s study. The prisons eventually took control of the prison due to the guards not being able to work as a group efficiently.This criticises Zimbardo’s study as the findings were not replicated

Question 17

Describe Milgram’s procedure

Answer 17

40 participants took part over a series of conditions where situational variables occurred to see their effect on obedience. They were told the experiment was about how punishment affects learning
2 confederates used -an experimenter and a man who was introduced as another volunteer participant. The real participant was always the teacher and the confederate was the learner. The learner was sitting in another room to the teacher but could be heard

Teacher asked to test learner on their ability to remember word pairs
Each incorrect answer the teacher had to administer electric shocks (which were fake but the participant thought they were real) starting at 15 volts increased every time up to 450 volts (enough to kill if shock was real)
Learner mainly gave wrong answers deliberately and would pretend to be in pain
If the teacher asked to stop giving the shocks the experimenter would convince them to continue

Question 18

Explain Milgram’s findings

Answer 18

26/40 (65%) of participants continued to administer shocks up to 450 volts.
All went to 300 volts, with only 5 stopping at this point (12%)
Demonstrated that the majority obeyed when being told what to do by an authoritative figure (the experimenter)

Question 19

What are the situational variables affecting obedience according to Milgram’s

Answer 19

Proximity - in the proximity study the teacher and learner were seated in the same room and obedience fell to 40%. This shows proximity is a crucial factor

Location - participants said Yale University gave the study prestige and they had confidence in the experimenter due to the location. They claimed they could not have obeyed to the same degree if the location was different. When the study was moved to a run-down office in Connecticut obedience rates dropped slightly but not significantly

The power of uniform - in the original study Milgram wore a lab coat as a symbol of authority. In a variation Milgram was replaced with ‘an ordinary member of the public’ secretly who was a confederate who wore everyday clothes and not a lab coat. Obedience rates dropped to 20%

Question 20

Evaluate Milgram’s study

Answer 20

Ethical issues- Milgram deceived his participants as he did not tell them the true purpose of the study. Consequently the participants did not make an informed decision to take part in the study. Participants may have not been fully aware of their right to withdraw due to the experimenters commands to continue with the procedure.

Internal validity- criticised for a lack of realism. The learner cried out in pain and yet the experimenter remained calm. Some argue this led to the participants assuming that the learner was not suffering any real harm.

Individual differences - Milgram, had a group where participants were female. The rate of obedience was the same as males although females reported more tension when they administered the maximum shock levels. This challenged the common assumption that women are more susceptible to social influence than men

Question 21

Explain what is meant by the agentic state as an explanation for obedience

Answer 21

-The agentic state is a process where you shift responsibility for your own actions onto someone else
-Move from being an autonomous person to acting as an agent for someone else, an authority figure
-The person can shift between autonomous and agentic

Question 22

Evaluate the agentic state

Answer 22

My Lai village - Vietnam War (1960’s). Platoon commander ordered his men to murder over 500 unarmed Vietnamese villagers. At his trial he denied murder claiming to have carried out orders of his superior officers.- showing he was in the agentic state

In Auschwitz doctors went from caring to performing potentially lethal experiments on helpless prisoners - this is a criticism of the agentic state as it shows that it is gradual and irreversible

Question 23

Explain what is meant by the legitimacy of authority

Answer 23

a legitimate authority figure is someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation.

a person will obey this figure as they perceive them to be of a higher social class than them

Question 24

Evaluate the legitimacy of authority

Answer 24

Explanation helps to explain cultural differences in obedience in relation to how we socialise children to perceive authority figures. Kilham and Mann replicated Milgram’s study in Australia and found that only 16% of pps went to 450 volts. However Mantell found in Germany 85% obeyed. Consequently this increases the validity of the explanation for obedience

Question 25

Explain the procedure and findings used to come up with the Authoritarian Personality

Answer 25

Adorno studied 2000 middle class white Americans in relation to their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. Several scales were developed to investigate this, one being the F-scale, which was used to investigate potential facism and is still used to measure the Authoritarian Personality

Pps who scored highly on the scale were rigid thinkers who obeyed authority- had stereotypical views - these were raised by parents who used an authoritarian personality lifestyle

Question 26

Evaluate the authoritarian personality

Answer 26

Milgram and Elms conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient pps, who scored highly on the F-scale. Selected 20 obedient pps (went to max shock level), and 20 defiant pps( refused to continue)

Question 27

Describe the authoritarian personality as a dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 27

Parents are severely strict and have high expectations of the child and will physically/emotionally punish them if the expectations are not met. They show the child conditional love only if standards are met

Over time the child resents their parents and fears them but also respects them so displaces their anger onto groups they deem to be of a lower social status/ inferior.
These children are extremely obedient so don’t question their parents behaviour.

Question 28

Evaluate the authoritarian personality

Answer 28

Milgram and Elms - did interviews w/ small sample of fully obedient pps who scored high on the F-scale thinking there may be a link between obedience and the A.P.

Did this by selecting 20 obedient pps (continued to final shock) and 20 defiant pps (refused to continue).

Each pp completed the F-scale and a MMPI scale (measured personality variables). Also asked questions about their childhood, their attitude to the authority figure (the experimenter) and learner during the original study

Little difference was found between obedient + defiant pps on the MMPI scale. But higher levels of authoritarianism were found with obedient pps, compared to defiant pps.

Obedient pps reported being less close to their fathers and saw the authority figure in Milgram’s experiment as admirable - all characteristics of the A.P. - supports the explanation

HOWEVER, it cannot be said that an abusive childhood will lead to the person becoming a fascist - not causation, only correlation - may be other factors involved - theory is deterministic

Question 29

Explain how the presence of social support helps individuals to resist conforming to the majority, as found by Asch

Answer 29

In one variation of Asch’s study, confederates became less unanimous in their answers, and so the real pps felt less self-conscious to give the correct answer as others around them also gave the correct answers, and therefore conformity rates dropped.

Question 30

Explain how social support helps individuals resist obedience to authority figures

Answer 30

It can be hard to resist obedience as authority figures make harmful actions seem acceptable.

People are more confident in resisting obedience if they can find an ally who will join them in opposing the authority figure. Disobedient peers therefore act as a role model to others.

In a variation of Milgram’s study, 3 pps were testing a learner - 2 of which were confederates, who one by one withdrew from the experiment. The defiance that they showed influenced the real pp with only 10% continuing to max shock level, compared to 65% in the original study

Question 31

Evaluate the link between social support and obedience resistance

Answer 31

Allen and Levine looked at if the position a pp is responding in during an Asch type experiment has an effect.
1st condition - confed answered 1st giving right answer, while other confeds all gave the same wrong answer. Real pp always last to answer
2nd condition- confed answered 4th, after other confeds, giving the correct answer

Found 1st condition provided more social support for real pp. Suggested a correct 1st answer confirmed the pps own judgement and produced an initial commitment to the correct response that endures even though others disagree - supporting social support

Rossenstrasse protest - Berlin 1943 - group of women protesting to get their Jewish husbands and sons back that the Gestapo were holding back, as most were married to non-Jews.
They demanded release of the men despite being threatened with death. Disobedient peers gave others the courage to resist orders, the men were eventually set free - supporting social support

Question 32

What is the locus of control?

Answer 32

how in control we feel we are over our own lives
measured on a scale of high internal to high external, most people being in between both extremes

High internal L.O.C - believe they can control events in their life, what happens to them is due to their own actions. Show independence and rely little on other’s opinions. More likely to resist social influence

High external L.O.C - believe what happens to them is out of their control but caused by other factors. Have a passive and fatalistic attitude taking less personal responsibility for thier actions. Show more dependent behaviour and are more likely to be influenced by others

Question 33

Evaluate the explanation of resisting social influence, locus of control

Answer 33

Spector - measured L.O.C to normative + informational influence in 157 undergrads.
A correlation was found between L.O.C and predisposition to normative social influence, externals were more likely to conform to this type of influence than internals, no correlation was found between informational social influence though - supports theory and links to Asch

Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured if pps were externals or internals. Found 37% of internals did not continue to final shock level whereas only 23% of externals did not continue - shows internals have a higher level of resistance.

Twenge - analysed data from obedience studies over a 40-year period and found people have generally become more resistant to obedience but also more external - challenges link between internal L.O.C and resisting obedience

Question 34

Describe Moscovici’s procedure

Answer 34

A group of 6 pps
4 naive pps (unaware of the purpose of research)
2 confeds
Shown 36 blue slides that varied in intensity and were asked to judge the colour of each slide
2 confeds consistently said the slides were green - known as the consistent experimental condition.

2nd condition - inconsistent experimental condition.
confeds said slides were green on 2/3 of trials but blue for 1/3

control condition with no confeds pps said slides were blue throughout

Question 35

What did Moscovici find?

Answer 35

consistent trial = influenced the majority of naive pps in over 8% of trials

inconsistent trial = had very little influence (0.25%) over the majority.

after main experiment pps asked to sort 16 coloured disks into blue or green
some disks were ambiguous - could have been considered either colour.
pps that were in the consistent trial judged more disks to be green than blue, compared to those in the inconsistent group - suggests this influence may be more private than public level - their beliefs had been changed

Question 36

Evaluate Moscovici’s study

Answer 36

Research was conducted which supported the idea of flexibility
Jury situation - pps discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to someone in an accident
when a confed put forward an alternative amount and refused to change his position, he had no effect upon the majority

when a confed showed some compromise he did exert influence on the majority - only occurred when they compromised late in negotiations as they were percieved as flexible

A variation of the study pps had to write down their answers rather than publically say them, and more pps agreed with the minority - suggested this could be due to the majority not wanting to be associated with the minority, as others would be judgemental - supports the findings that minorities can influence majorities but the majority may not want to admit this due to reprisals from others

real life application is difficult as real life minority influence is much harder as majorities can exert much more power and status over minorities

Question 37

Explain the social influence processes in social change (majority influence)

Answer 37

Behavioural choices often relate to group norms - affected by normative social influence, they will conform to fit in with behaviours they perceive to be the norm.
The perceived norm (what they believe others think) is typically very different to the actual norm (what they actually believe). The gap between these is known as the misperception and correcting this is what we call social norms interventions

Question 38

Explain how social norms interventions mitigate misperceptions

Answer 38

Identify a misperception of behaviour e.g. how young ppl generally misperceive how much alcohol their peers drink.

Perception correction strategies can then be used to communicate to the target population the actual norm, e.g. through media campaigns

Question 39

Describe a real life example to support the idea of social norms interventions

Answer 39

Montana, USA, a social norms intervention was run to aim to lower the number of drink-driving accidents in adults aged 21-34.

An initial survey found that 20.4% of this age range reported having driven within 1 hour of drinking more than 2 drinks over a month period.

92% believed that their peers had actually done the same (perceived norm)

The programme corrected this norm with the message ‘most montana young adults (4/5) DON’T drink and drive’ .This is the actual norm

Drink-driving dropped to 13.7% compared to counties where the campaign didn’t run- the misperception corrected which resulted in a change in their behaviour

Some interventions have however not been as effective as this one. Dejong researched the effectiveness of a marketing campaign to reduce alcohol consumption amongst students . Despite receiving normative information that corrected their misperceptions, students did not show lower perceptions of student’s drinking levels nor did they report lower self-reported alcohol consumption as a result of the campaign

Question 40

Explain how minority influence leads to social change

Answer 40

To make change happen, minorities must follow the following 5 stages

Stage 1 - Drawing attention to the issue
=informing people of the issue
=aim to reduce conflict that this causes

Stage 2- Cognitive conflict
=conflict between majority + minority makes majority think more deeply about the issue being raised

Stage 3 - Consistency of position
=minorities must be consistent over time and together. this makes majorities take them more seriously

Stage 4 - The augmentation principle
= Minority seen as more powerful if they are willing to suffer for their views. They are seen to be committed and are taken more seriously

Stage 5 - The snowball effect
= Initially a small effect is produced nut then spreads widely until a tipping point is reached - this is when the minority becomes the majority and social change has occurred.

Question 41

Evaluate minority influence causing social change

Answer 41

Real life application - suffragettes - supports explanation

Minorities have been argued to provide the potential for social change rather than actually bringing about the change. This is because change does not happen quickly - due to us following the majority to avoid disrupting the status quo. This therefore challenges how directly influential minorities are in social change

Also, minorities may be viewed as deviant and so majorities would not want to associate with deviant behaviour. Therefore the message from a deviant majority can be lost as majorities focus on their actions more than their message