Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

psychology > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

conformity - aschs baseline procedure

A

2 what extent will people conform 2 opinion of oths
even if answer cert

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

conformity - variables investigated by asch

A

1 group size - varied nu confed fr 1-15, fou curvilinear relation b/w grp size/conformity, w 3 confed conform increased to 31.8% b +re lil difference, TF: sugg most peop sensitive to oth views
2 unanimity - ppts conform less w dissenter even if gave another wrong answer, rate decrease less than 1/4 lev when maj unanimous, ppt felt indep w dissent, TF: sugg influe maj dep 2 large extent on being unanimous
3 task difficulty - increase difficulty line judgem task fou conformity increased bec situ ambig, in these situs natural to look to oths 4 guidance (info social influe)

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

evaluation - artificial situ and task; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppt knew were in res, demand charac
fishe; gr x resemble gr experi everyday life
TF: findings x generalise 2 real world situ esp where there’s conseq

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

evaluation - limited applic; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppts american men, oth res sugg wom +re conforming bec care abo social relations
us individualist cult, in collectivist cult conform rates higher
TF: asch findings tell us litt abo conform in oth cult/wom

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

evaluation - research supp; asch baseline study

A

strength
todd et al; hard/easy maths qs task
ppts given ans fr 3 confed fou ppt confirm +re oft when maths qs hard
TF: asch right in claims abo task difficulty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

evaluation - research supp counterpoint; asch baseline study

A

limit
lucas et al; fou conform +re complex
ppts w high maths confidence conform less on hard tasks compared to low confidence
TF: indiv lev fact can influe conform by interaction w situ variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

evaluation - ethical issues; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppts deceived in thinking oth ppts involved too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

conformity; ty and explanations - ty conformity

A

kelman; 3 ways peop conform to maj opin
1 internalisation; pers accepts norms, priv/pub change opin, perm change bec attit internalised
2 identification; conform when identify w grp, may pub change ops/beh 4 accept b may x priv
3 compliance; going along w oths publicly b priv x chan ops/beh, stop as soon grp press stops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

conformity ty/expla - explanations for conformity

A

deutsch/gerard; 2 proc theory, 2 reas 4 conformity: 2 be right/liked
1 info social influes; when uncert abo beh/belief follow grp to be right, cog proc, perm change
2 normative social influe; norms typical 4 social grp, temp change in ops/beh, like in situ w stranger where concerns abo rej/peop u yk for social approval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evaluation - res supp for NSI

A

strength
asch interviews; fou conform bec felt self conscious/afraid disapproval
when ppts wrote ans down conform decre to 12.5% bec no normative grp press
TF: shows some conform arise bec desire 2 x be rej by grp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

evaluation - res supp for ISI

A

strength
lucas et al; task diffic study wh saw conform increased when situ ambig
TF: ISI valid explanation of conform bec res what ISI predicts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

evaluation - res supp for ISI counterpoint

A

limit
unclear wheth ISI or NSI occur
ex asch dissenter variable; decre NSI bec prov social supp or decre ISI bec alternative source info
TF; hard sep 2 and b proc prob operate tg in real life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluation - indiv differences in NSI

A

limit
nAffiliator; peop greatly concerned w being liked by oths
mcghee/teevan; fou students who were naffil +re like to conform
TF; there r indiv differ in conform that cx be fully expla by 1 general theory of situ press

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

zimbardos research - SPE

A

set up mock prison in psychology department basement at stanford uni
21 men volunt who emot stable, randomly assigned as prisoner/guard and encouraged to conform to social roles thru uniform/beh
1 unif; prison = lose smock/cap, identif by nu, gu = wooden club/handcuffs, unif creat loss ident
2 instruct abo beh; prison encourag identify w role by sev proced ex. apply 4 parole 2 leave proc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

zimbardos res - findings related 2 social roles

A

gu treat prison harshly, aft 2 days prison rebelled ie. swearing/rip unif
gu divide and rule tactic; harassed prison ex. freq headcount’s/highligh diff social roles
aft rebell prison became dep, 1 psychological disturb, 1 hunger strike who was force fed then put in dark closet as punish
+re they identify w gu role +re harsher became, end study aft 6 days instead of 14

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

zimbardos research - conclusions related to social roles

A

have strong influe on indiv beh
gu = brutal, prison = submissive
roles v easily taken on by all ppts even volunt who came ex prison chaplain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

evaluation - control; zimbardos research

A

strength
contr over key variables
emot stable ppts / roles randomly assigned
ruled out indiv pers differences
TF: degree contr over variables increased validity of study so confid in drawing conc abo influe roles on conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

evaluation - lack of realism; zimbardos research

A

limit
x have realism of true prison
banuazizi/movahedi; ppts play acting and performing based on steroty wh expl y prison rioted
TF: sugg find spe tells litt abo conform 2 soci roles in actual prisons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

evaluation - counterpoint of lack of realism; SPE

A

strength
mcdermott; arg ppts did beh as if prison was real ex. 90% convos abo prison life
prisoner 416 said believed prison was real b run by psychologists
TF: sugg spe replicat social role of prison/gu in real prison gibing study high degree of internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

evaluation - exagg power of roles; zimbardos research

A

limit
exagg pow soci roles 2 influe beh
ex. only 1/3 gu acc beh brutally, anoth 1/3 were fair and anoth 1/3 tried help prison
most gu able resist situational pressures 2 conform 2 brut rol
TF: sugg zimbardo overstated view that spe ppts were conforming 2 social roles/minimised dispositional facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

milgrams research - baseline procedure

A

40 male american volunt in ‘memory test’
at lab drew lots wh were fixed so ppt always T , E./L. always confed
aim to assess obed in situ where E ordered (fake) shocks
shocks range 15-450 V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

milgrams research - baseline findings

A

all ppts gave shocks up to 300 V
12.5% stopped at 300
60% went to 450
qualitative data of obvs fou extreme tension/sweat and 3 full blow seizures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

milgrams research - other data

A

ask 14 psych students their predict
results unexpect, they pred no more than 3% will go all the way
all ppts debriefed and qu fou 85% glad pptd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

milgrams research - conclusions

A

german people not diff
americans also risk harming ppl for obedience

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

evaluation - research support; milgrams research

A

strength
findings replic in french docum abo reality tv game show
ppt paid to give shocks to oth ppts (actors) in front if audience
80% deliv max shocks and show anxiety
TF: supp M findings, x due to special circumstances

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

evaluation - low internal validity; milgrams research

A

limit
orne/holland; arg ppts x believe set up, ‘play acting’
perry; listened to tapes of M ppts and fou only half believed shocks real
TF: sugg ppts responding to demand charac

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

evaluation - counterpoint to low internal validity; milgrams research

A

sheridan/king; milgrams like study w puppy
ppts gave real shocks as ordered by E
54% men/100% wom gave fatal shocks despite puppy’s real distress
TF: sugg eff M study genuine

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

evaluation - alternative interpretation of findings ; milgrams research

A

limit
halsam et al; show M ppts obeyed w 1st 3 prods b w 4th (u have no choice must go on) disobeyed
accord SIT ppts only obeyed when identified w scientific aims of res
TF: shows SIT +re valid interp of findings

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

obedience situational variables - proximity

A

BS; T could hear b x see L
prox var; T/L in same room, O decr fr 65 to 40%
touch prox var; T place L hand on electroshock, O decre furth to 30%
remote instruc var; E left room/gave instruc by phone, O decre to 20.5%
decre prox allows peop to psychologically distance fr conseq

30
Q

obedience situational variables - location

A

experiment in run down office, O decre to 47.5%
uni loc +re O bec E seen to share this legitimacy
b O still high bec office is scientific nature

31
Q

obedience situational variables - uniform

A

BS; E wore grey lab coat
var; E replaced w memb of pub in everyday clothed
O decre to 20%
unif symb of authority

32
Q

evaluation - research support; situational variables

A

strength
bickman NY field experim; 3 confed in security gu, jacket/tie, milkman unif
all indiv asked peop perf task ie. pick litter
peop 2x +re like to obey security gu than J/T
TF: supp view situ var has powerful eff

33
Q

evaluation - cross cultural replications; situational variables

A

strength
findings replic w dutch ppts
asked to say stressful things in interv to someone desperate for job
90% obeyed/prox var E x present obed decre
TF: sugg M find valid across cultures/apply to wom

34
Q

evaluation - counterpoint to cross culture; situational variables

A

limit
replic x v cross cultural
smith/bond; identif 2 replic in india/jordan and find b diff to us
oth countries like spain/scot acc simi to us
TF: may x be approp to apply M find to all peop in all cultures

35
Q

agentic state - obedience situational explanations

A

Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs bc pers x take responsibility and believe they are acting for someone else
autonomous state ; pers free to beh according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions
agentic shift ; shift fr autonomy to agency when pers percieves someone else as an authority fig
binding factors ; aspects of the situ that allow the pers to ign the damaging eff of their beh and reduce the moral strain

36
Q

legitimacy of authority - obedience situational explanations

A

expla sugg that we are more likely to obey peop who we perceive to have authority over us, authority is justified by the indiv position of power w/n a social hierarchy
powerf leaders can use their legitimate pow for destructive purposes
ex. Milgram and the experimenters prods to order ppts to beh in ways that went against their consciousness

37
Q

evaluation - research supp; agentic state

A

strength
most of milgrams ppt resisted giving shocks at one point b when they asked the E who is resposib if the learner is harmed and the E said himself they contin giving the shocks
tf shows once ppts fou thyere no longer responsib for own beh they easily became E agent

38
Q

evaluation - limited expla ; agentic state

A

limit
rank and jacobsons study; fou 16/18 nurses disobeyed doctor when asked to administer an excessive dose to a patient even tho the doctor was legitimate authority fig, almost all remained autonomous
tf sugg agentic shift accounts for some situ of obed

39
Q

evaluation - explains cultural differences ; legitimacy of authority

A

strength
kilham/mann fou 16% australian wom went upto 450 V compared to 85% german ppts
tf in some cult authority +re likely accepted as legitimate wh reflects ways diff soc r structured and how childr r raised to percieve authority fig

40
Q

evaluation - cannot expla all obediance ; legitimacy of authority

A

limit
theory cx expla instances of disobed in hierachy where legitimacy of auth ic clear
ex. nurses in rank/jacobsons study and signif min of milgrams pts disobeyed despite recog E scientific auth
tf sugg some peop may be more or less obed than oth, possib that innate tendencies to obey/disobey have greater influe on beh than LAF

41
Q

obedience dispostional explanations - authoritarian personality and obedience

A

adorno et al; peop w AP have extreme respect for authority
beli need strong/powerful leaders to enforce trad values ie. love for country
contempt for those of inferior social status
no grey areas
oth peop responsible for ills of soc / targets

42
Q

obedience dispositional explanation - origins of AP

A

adorno et al; AP forms in childhood as res of harsh parenting ie. strict discipline/conditional love
this experi creates hostility/resentment in child wh they displace onto weaker peop as can’t take it out on parents due to fear of punish
expl hatred towards peop socially inferior and feature of obed to authority
psychodynamic approach

43
Q

obedience dispositional explanation - adorno et als research

A

proced; stud +re 2000 m/c american white men and their unconscious attit towards eth grps
develop F scale to measure AP
findings; high scorers identified w ‘strong’ peop/contemptuous of weak
conscious of status/show extreme respect to those higher status
APs had B/W thinking and fixed stereoty
fou strong correlation b/w authoritarian/prejudice

44
Q

evaluation - research support; disposal explanation

A

strength
M/elms; interv small samp obed peop fr og BS
comple F scale and all 20 ppts scored highly compared to 20 disobed ppts
TF: supp Adornos view obed peop show simi charac to APs

45
Q

evaluation - counterpoint to research support; dispositional explanation

A

fou obed ppts had nu charac unusual for APs
ex. M ppts x glorify fathers/experi high lev punish in childhood
TF: link b/w obed/authoritarianism complex, authoritarianism unlike useful predict of obed

46
Q

evaluation - limited explanation; dispositional explanation

A

limit
authoritarianism cx expl obed in maj country popul
ex. pre war germany millions displayed obed/anti sem beh b extremely unlike all had APs
alternative view; social identity theory, maj identif w anti sem state
TF: A theory limited bec alternative expl +re realistic

47
Q

evaluation - flawed evidence; dispositional explanation

A

limit
greenstein; calls F scale ‘comedy of methodological errors
extremely flawed scale
ex. some1 can put all agree ans and be determined to get high score anyone w this resp bias assessed as having AP

48
Q

resistance to social influence - resisting conformity

A

social support
press to conform resisted of oth x conforming
1 pers x conform is social supp wh enable naive ppt to follow own conscious/acts as ‘mod’ of indep beh
dissent rises +re dissent as maj no longer unanimous

49
Q

resistance to social influence - resisting obedience

A

social support
press to obey resist if anoth pers disobeys
M obed var O drop to 10% fr 65% when paired w disobed confed
ppt may x follow beh b disobed ppt acts as model/frees ppt
disobed mod challenges legitimacy of authority fig so easier for oth to disobey

50
Q

resistance to social influence - the LOC continuum

A

LOC
rotter; int LOC; believe things happened to them largely contr by themselves
ext LOC; believe things happen r outside of their control
LOC is scale as peop aren’t just one or the oth
high int LOC at one end, high ext LOC at oth

51
Q

resistance to social influence - LOC explan

A

people w high int LOC +re resist to press of conform/obed
bas decis on own beliefs than oth opin
peop w high int LOC +re self confident, intelligent, achiev orientated
these traits lead to greater resist to social influence

52
Q

evaluation - real world research; resistance to social influence

A

strength
susan albrecht et al; eval of teen fresh start usa
help preg 14-19 resist press to smoking
social supp by older mentor
fou by end prog those w ment less like to smoke than those w/o
TF: shows social supp can help you peop resist real social influence, ex of real intervention

53
Q

evaluation - research support for dissenting peers; resistance to social influence

A

strength
gamson et al; ppt told to produce evid for oil campaign to run smear campaign
fou high lev resist than M study bec ppts in grp so cou discuss what told to do
29/33 pptd rebelled against orders
TF: shows peer supp can lead to disobed by undermining legit of auth

54
Q

evaluation - research support for LOC ; resistance to social influence

A

strength
supp link b/w loc and resist to obed
holland; repeat M study/meas wheth ppts int/ext
fou 37% int x cont to highest shock/23% ext x so int had greater resist to auth
TF: shows resist partly relat to LOC wh increases validity of expla for obed

55
Q

evaluation - contradictory research; resistance to social influence

A

limit
twenge et al; analysed data fr american LOC study over 40 yrs
fou over time peop beco +re resist to obed b +re ext
if resis linked to int then peop expect to beco +re int
TF: sugg LOC x valid expla of how peop resist soci influe

56
Q

minority influence - consistency

A

min must be consist in their views as this incre interest fr oths
consis can be form of agreement b/w peop in min grp
2 ty, synchronic consis/diachronic consis
this makes peop rethink their views

57
Q

minority influence - commitment

A

sometimes min engage in extreme acts to draw attent
import that act pres some risk bec shows greater commit
maj grp may pay +re attent
augmentation principle

58
Q

minority influence - flexibility

A

nemeth; some1 extreme consis may seen as rigid/unbend so unlike to gain converts
min must prepare to adapt view/accept reasonable counterarg
key balance b/w flex/consis

59
Q

minority influence - explaining process of change

A

if hear something new that is consis, committ, flex u think deeply about it
over time nu peop switch to min view ex of snowball eff

60
Q

evaluation - research support for consistency; minority influence

A

strength
wood et al; meta analysis of 100 simi study to moscovicis study and fou min seen as consis r most influential
TF: sugg presenting consis view is minim requirem for influe maj

61
Q

evaluation - research support for deeper processing ; minority influence

A

strength
martin et al; 1 grp heard min arg, anoth heard maj agree
when attit meas again fou min grp less like change attit
TF: sugg min message +re deeply processed/+re enduring eff wh supp cent arg

62
Q

evaluation - counterpoint for deeper processing; minority influence

A

real world min influe +re complex
ex maj have +re pow/status
min have to be +re commit bec face hostile opposition
in min res they’re just smaller grp
TF: martins find v limit in what can tell about real life situ

63
Q

evaluation - artificial tasks; minority influence

A

limit
research artif/far fr how min change beh in real life
ex jury decision making/political campaigning cou have life/death conseq
TF: find limit in how min influe works in real worl situs

64
Q

social influence and social change - lessons fr minority influence research

A

drawing attent; civil rights marches
consistency; many marches over yrs w same message
deeper processing; activism meant peop started thinking deeply
augmentation principle; freedom riders risked their lives
snowball effect; +re peop backed min
social cryptomnesia; peop have memory of change occurred b x rememb how

65
Q

social influence and social change - lessons from conformity research

A

aschs research; var w dissent shows dissent has pot to lead to social change
environmental/health campaigns; use conformity proc by NSI by prov info on what oths doing
ex. reducing litter by saying ‘bin it oths do’
ex. prev you peop smoking by saying oth young peop x
social change encourag by drawing attent to what maj doing

66
Q

social influence and social change - lessons from obedience research

A

M; var where T confed refused to give shocks so O for genuine ppts decre
zimbardo; gradual commit, once small instruct obeyed beco +re diffic to resist bigger one
peop drift into new kind beh

67
Q

evaluation - research support for normative influences

A

strength
nolan et al; hung messages every week for 1 mon on peop doors about saving energy
g1 had message that oth trying to reduce energy usage
cg had message only about reducing energy
fou signif decre in energy use for g1 compar to cg
TF: shows conform thru NSI can lead to social change so valid expla

68
Q

evaluation - counterpoint to NSI research supp; social influence/social change

A

some stud show peop x always change
foxcroft; review soci norms by look at 70 stud where soci norms used to reduce alcohol use in students
fou only small reduct in quantities not freq
TF: NI x always produce long term soci change

69
Q

evaluation - minority influence explains change ; social influence/social change

A

strength
claims social change due to ty of thinking
min engage in divergent thinking wh is broad/thinker actively searches for info/weighs +re opt
arg leads to bett decis/+re creative solut to social issues
TF: shows dissent min stim new idea/open minds ways wh maj cx

70
Q

evaluation - role of deeper processing; social influence/social change

A

limit
deeper processing x role in min soci change
mackie; arg maj influe create deeper proc if x share views bec we believe oth peop share our views/think same
when maj think diff were forced to think hard about their arg
TF: means cent arg 4 min influe is challenged by casting doubt on valid for expect social change

psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions