Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

psychology A Level > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

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

what are the types of conformity

A

Compliance= weakest going along public but change in private

Identification= publically change opinion private not agree

Internalisation= deepest level private and public change

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

what are the explanations for conformity?

A

Informational SI: who has better info, desire to be right, in situations of ambiguity

Normative SI: norms, emotional process, gain social approval, not appear foolish

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

evaluation for types + explanations

A
  • Individual differences (nAffiliators care more about what others think)
  • ISI + NSI work together (not independent e.g Asch dissenter)

+ Research support (Asch, NSI)

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

what is Aschs study?

A

• standard line card + 3 comparison line card
• 123 American male undergrads
• pp tested with 6-8 confederates
• 18 trials, 12 critical (confeds gave wrong answer)

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

findings of Aschs study:

A

75% conformed at least once
25% didn’t conform at all
(conformed to avoid rejection NSI)

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

Aschs variations:

A

• Group size: 3 confeds, conformity ⬆️ 31.8%, any more made little difference
• Unanimity: dissenting confed ⬇️ conformity by 1/4
• Task difficulty: standard line and comparison lines more similar ⬆️ conformity (ISI)

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

evaluation of Asch:

A
  • artificial situation & task (dc)
  • limited application to situations (Williams & Sogon conformity higher with friends)
  • ethical issues, deception, however benefits outweigh
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Zimbardos research:

A

• mock prison in Stanford uni basement
• students volunteered (emotionally stable)
• randomly assigned roles
• prisoners: arrested, blindfolded, strip searched, deloused, given uniform & number
• guards: uniform, club, handcuffs, keys, mirror shades, shifts 3 at a time

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

Findings of zimbardos research:

A

• stopped after 6 days instead of 14
• 2 days, prisoners rebelled
• headcount’s in middle of night
• 1 released on 1st day, 2 on 4th
• 1 went on hunger strike (put in “the hole”, shunned by others)
• guards became more brutal & aggressive

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

evaluation of Zimbardo

A

+ control, randomly assigned to roles, minimise individual differences

  • lack of realism, behaving based on stereotypes (+ however 90% conversations about prison life, 416 real prison, run by psychologists)
  • dispositional influence, 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, others acted fairly/ reinstated privileges
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what was Milgrams research?

A
  • 40 male pp newspaper + post
  • aged 20-50 years, offered $4.50
  • Mr Wallace, learner, confederate (rigged draw)
  • experimenter (lab coat, confed)
  • learner in another room wired with electrodes
  • teacher give shocks after mistakes on learning task
  • shocks 15v to 450v
    300v learner pounded on wall
  • experimenter prods: (1) “please continue” (4) “you have no other choice you must go on”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Findings of milgrams research:

A
  • no pp stopped below 300v
  • 65% went to 450v
  • qualitative: sweat, bite lips, 3 had uncontrollable seizures
  • all debriefed after
  • 84% glad to have participated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluation of milgrams research:

A

+ good external validity (although lab) reflects wider authority relationships, hofling et al 21/22 nurses (generalised)

  • ethical issues, deception, pressure to continue, no protection from harm (seizures)
  • / + low internal validity, questioning if shocks were real, however sheridan & king 100% ‘fatal shock’, 70% pp thought study was real
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the situational variables?

A

proximity= physical closeness
* teacher & learner in same room 40%
* touch proximity 30%
* experimenter orders by phone 20.5%

location= run down building 47.5%

uniform= experimenter “ordinary member of public” (confed) 20%

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

evaluate milgrams variations

A

+ research support, Bickman, no uniform, milkman and security
asked civilians to perform tasks, e.g pick up litter 2x likely to obey guard than no uniform

+ high control, systematically altered 1 variable at a time

  • low internal validity, worked out it was fake in member of public variation, demand characteristics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what is the agentic shift?

A
  • shift from autonomous state to agentic

agentic= no personal responsibility, acting for authority figure, an ‘agent’ powerless to disobey

autonomous= responsibility, behave according to own principles

17
Q

what are binding factors?

A
  • aspects which allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, reduce moral strain by shifting the blame or denying
18
Q

what is legitimacy of authority?

A
  • more likely to obey people who have authority over us, justified by their position in society
19
Q

evaluate social psychological factors:

A

+ Research support (Blass Schmitt) film of milgram to students, blamed experimenter for harm due to being LAF

  • limited explanation, why some dont obey? cant explain Hofling’s findings, didn’t show high anxiety

+ cultural differences, (Kilham Mann) Australia 16% went to 450v, (Mantell) German 85% increases valdiity

20
Q

What is the authoritarian personality?

A
  • submissive and obedient to authority, highly conventional attitudes
  • things are either right or wrong
  • dismissive of inferiors
21
Q

How did Adorno investigate the authoritarian personality?

A
  • 2000 MC white americans uncocnsious attitudes to other racial groups
  • developed F (facism) scale
    measuring authoritarian personality
22
Q

Findings of Adorno et al study:

A
  • Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
  • Authoritarians had fixed distinct stereotypes
  • Conscious of own status, high respect for others
23
Q

Origin of the authoritarian personality

A
  • in childhood due to harsh parenting (extreme discipline, high standards)
  • creating resentment and hostility, displace onto others who are ‘weaker’
24
Q

Evaluation of authoritarian personality

A

+/- research support, Milgram & Elms, small sample of obedient pp scored high on f scale. link between obedience & authoritarian, however correlational not cause

  • Methodology problems, wording in same direction, tick all boxes (acquiescence bias) interviewed pp about childhood, knew score, bias
  • limited explanation, pre war Germany, displayed racist obedient behaviours unlikely all had AP (alternative explanation e.g. social identity)
25
Q

what is social support?

A

presence of people who don’t conform or obey, help others resist conformity (dissenter Asch + Milgram dropped 10% disobedient confed)

26
Q

what is locus of control?

A

internal= in their control, responsible

external= outside forces, luck, not their fault

27
Q

evaluate social support:

A

+ conformity, (Allen Levine)
decreased with dissenter even with thick glasses/ vision difficulty (free from pressure)

+ obedience (Gamson et al) dissenting peers, resist, 88% rebelled

28
Q

evaluate locus of control:

A

+ research support, Holland, 37% internals not highest shock, 23% externals didn’t (increases validity)

  • limited role in resisting SI, only works in new situations, if familiar, will repeat previous behaviour even if have a high internal LOC
29
Q

What is minority influence?

A

> small group of people influence the majority, most likely to lead to internalisation

30
Q

What was Moscovici’s study?

A

172 female pp, groups of 6 (2 confeds) 36 slides varying shades of blue, consistent condition & inconsistent (24 green) consistent: 8.2% agreed
inconsistent: 1.25%

30
Q

3 factors in minority influence:

A

Consistency= synchronic: saying the same thing, diachronic: same thing for time
commitment= extreme activities to draw attention (augmentation principle)
flexibility= Nemeth, accept others views, compromise

31
Q

evaluate minority influence:

A

+ research support Moscovici, wood et al meta-analysis, 100 similar, consistency has more influence
- artificial tasks, lack external validity, dont apply to real life situations
- Moscovici, gender bias, female participants (beta) cant generalise. didn’t obtain informed consent, deceived

32
Q

Process of social change:

A
  • drawing attention, e.g civil rights marches
  • consistency, diachronic + synchronic
  • deeper processing, think about unjustness of it
  • augmentation principle, performing risky action so must be partially true
  • snowball effect, increasing numbers, minority becomes majority
  • social cryptomnesia, know change has occurred but not how
33
Q

evaluate social change:

A
  • Mackie, majority influence creates deeper processing than minority, thinking why
  • indirectly effective & delayed. taken decades for smoking attitudes to change

+ evidence, Nolan et al, energy conservation, messages on doors, ‘most residents trying to…’ control, ‘save energy’ decrease in energy usage of 1st group (NSI)

psychology A Level (11 decks)

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