social influence

Question 1

types of conformity

Answer 1

internalisation - going along with others as their point of view is consistent with yours. private and public acceptance

compliance - going along with others to gain approval/avoid disapproval.
little to no private attitude change

identification - we identify with a group, so want to be part of it. publicly change behaviour.

Question 2

evaluation of conformity

Answer 2

normative - you conform as you want to be liked or respected by the group
evaluation - ASCH (1951): when answers were written down conformity dropped to 12.5%
Schultz et al. (2008)- 25% reduction in need for fresh towels when told 75% of guests reuse.

informational - you conform as you think the group has superior knowledge
evaluation - LUCAS ET AL.(2006): greater conformity to incorrect maths answers when problems were difficult.

Question 3

what was the aim of asch’s study in 1951

Answer 3

to investigate the effects of conformity to a majority, when the task is ambiguous.

Question 4

procedure of the ASCH’S STUDY(1951)

Answer 4

• 123 male undergraduates from 3 us collages
• one naive pp and a group of 6-8 confederates
• show 2 white cards - one with a single line
• the other with three lines with 3 lines in various sizes
• ## 12/18 trials confederates give incorrect answers (critical trials )

Question 5

findings of asch’s study

Answer 5

control trials - in ordinary circumstances people make mistakes 1% of the time
critical trials
- pps give incorrect answers 36.8% of the time. 75% conformed at least once

Question 6

social roles

Answer 6

The parts individuals play as members of various social groups, which meet the expectations of that situation.
Example social roles include: parent, child, student, passenger etc. with expectations such as; caring, obedient, hard working.

Question 8

What was the aim of Zimbardo’s Study in 1973?

Answer 8

to see whether a person would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or officer, when placed in a mock prison environment and to test the dispositional explanation of conformity

Question 9

what was the procedure of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 9

• 21 healthy male volunteers
  -randomly allocated role
• participants were blind folded and taken to the mock prison
• given uniforms and numbers not names
• guards wore khaki shirts and trousers , dark glasses and carried wooden batons
• guards allowed to make rules

Question 10

Findings of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 10

guards behaved in a brutal and sadistic manner. Prisoners were taunted with insults

prisoners- rebellious and ripped their uniforms. swore at the guards.

study was meant to last 2 weeks only lasted 6 days

Question 11

evaluation of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 11

replication - Reicher and Haslam (2006) replicated Zimbardo’s study in th UK. Participants did not conform to social roles. Guards refused to impose to social roles

individual differences - Guards did not all act the same. 1/3 of guards behaved brutally - 1/3 applied rules fairley and 1/3 helped the prisioners

ethics - critisised for not protecting participants from harm

Question 12

what was the aim of Milgram’s Obedience study 0in 1963?

Answer 12

to test whether ordinary americans would obey an unjust order and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure.

Question 13

Milgram’s study - procedure

Answer 13

40 american males age 20-50 who responded to an advert in the newspaper - they were paid $4.50 for participating

greeted by two confederates, one was an experimenter in a lab coat the other was he learner.

participants allocated the tole of teacher - stat infront of a shock generator in a seperate room

the learner had to respond to a set of word pairs.
each wrong answer = a shock

the learner deliberatly gave 3 wrong answers - made no comment or protest till 300v

there were 4 main prompt used if participant was hesitant
- ‘please continue’ , ‘the experiment requires that you continue’ , ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’, and ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’

Question 14

how many people continued to 300 V

Answer 14

ALL continued to 300 v

Question 15

how many refused to carry on past 300V ?

Answer 15

5 refused to carry on.

26(65%) continued to 450v.

Question 16

Evaluation of Milgram (1963)

Answer 16

Ecological Validity - some have criticised milgram by saying his study did not reflect real life situations.
Hofling (1966) repeated the study in a real life setting (a hospital) and got similar results - obedience is high in real life

ethics - milgram deceived participants and made it so they were unable to withdraw .
many ppts showed obvious signs of stress and guilt.

internal Validity - Orne and Holland argue that the participants did not believe the experiment was real. some suggest they only shocked them as they were getting paid.

Question 17

what are the 5 explanations for obedience?

Answer 17

Agentic State - when you obey orders of an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions.

proximity - when learner is in same room obedience dropped. if instructions were given over the phone obedience drops.

location - less credible locations e.g. run down office block rather than prestigious university causes obedience to drop .

uniform - lab coat indicates status. when experimenter did not wear one obedience dropped.

legitimacy of authority - uniform and location demonstrate legitimate authority. people will obey when the person giving instructions has power because of these things

Question 18

evaluation of Milgrams variations

Answer 18

agentic shift - someone else administred the shock - 92.5 %

location and legitimate authority - conducted in run down office block - 48%

Question 19

dispositional explanations of obedience

Answer 19

authoritarian personality - Adorno et al. (1950) created the F scale to measure authoritarian personality in 2000 WHITE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS.

Question 20

findings of authoritarian personality

Answer 20

showed respect to authority with fixed distinct stereotypes
- positively correlated to the prejudice towards others
inflexible in their outlook
more likely to obey authority figures
treated harshly as children - hostility towards parents
displace this hostility later in life onto minority groups (psyhodynamic explanation)

Question 21

evaluation for Dispositional Explanation

Answer 21

Milgram support
- 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F scale compared to 20 disobedient participants, supporting influence of authoritarian personality

limited explanation
- unrealistic to assume that all members of one country could have an authoritarian personality but rather they just identified with the Nazi’s anti-Semitic views.

Question 22

resistance to social influence

Answer 22

social support
those with social support can be more confident and will not fear rejection or ridicule. they are more likely to resist social influence and remain independent.

Question 23

evaluation of social support

Answer 23

conformity support
- resistance to conformity increased from 3% to 64% when there was social support in a similar study to Asch.
real world application
- Albercht et al. (2006) found that those with a ‘buddy’ during the Fresh Start USA campaign, were less likely to smoke than those without a ‘buddy’ .

Question 24

locus of control

Answer 24

A persons perception of personal control over their own behaviour.
measured along a dimension of ‘high internal’ to ‘high external’

Question 25

high internal vs high external

Answer 25

high internals are active seekers of information - rely less on others opinions

high internals are more achievement- orientated and so more likely to become leaders .

high internals are more self confident and higher intelligence - more able to resist coercion from others as they don’t need social approval.

Question 26

evaluation of locus control

Answer 26

contradicting research
Schurz (1985) found that 80% of participants gave a highest possible shock to learners but locus control measures were jot predictive of obedience

situational dependence
- Rotter (1984) states a persons LOC only influences their behaviour in new situations and we will conform if we did so in the same situation before

Question 27

Minority Influence
- how do minorities influence others ?

Answer 27

consistency
- if a minority continues to state the same thing over a period of time - more likely to influence others

commitment
- when a minority shows a commitment , it demonstrates confidence and courage and at a great cost to them.

flexibility
- a rigid minority that refuses to compromise risks being perceived as narrow minded.

Question 28

evaluation of Minority Influence

Answer 28

meta - analysis
- wood et al (1994) examined almost 100 similar studies and found minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential.

private responses
- in a variation of Moscovivi’s study - participants were allowed to write their answers down and private agreement was greater ion these circumstances

ecological validity
Choosing colours in these studies has no bearing on real life consequences, people may take more care not to be influenced if it had more of an affect on their life.

Question 29

Processes Leading to Social Change

Answer 29

1. Drawing attention: Using marches, protests etc. to draw attention to the issue
2. Consistency: Be consistent in the message and over time
3. Deeper Processing: People start to think about the minority opinion
4. Augmentation Principle: Willing to take risks to show commitment 5. Snowball Effect: The group slowly gains more authority and grows in number - becoming the majority and causing conformity and obedience to occur.
5. Social Cryptoamnesia: Many have no memory of how the changes came about

Question 30

example of social change

Answer 30

Suffragettes
1. Educational, political and militant tactics
2.Continued for 15 years, even if imprisoned
3.Conflict created in minds after being exposed to suffragette views
4. Willing to suffer – hunger strikes, imprisonment
5. Group membership encouraged others to join
6. Now we do not remember how women’s votes came about or the events leading up to it

Question 31

Social Change
Social Influence Research

Answer 31

Conformity
A single dissenter can create social change
Normative social influence can create social change by drawing our attention tow hat others are doing

Obedience
Disobedient peers caused a reduction in obedience
Gradual commitment - Also referred to as the ‘foot in the door phenomenon’. This refers to instances where a person might show some sort of commitment to a particular task e.g. by starting something and then as they continue it becomes harder to back down/change their mind.

Question 32

Evaluation of Social Change

Answer 32

Normative SI Support
Nolan et al (2008) hung messages on the front doors of house with the message that most residents were trying to reduce their energy consumption. Some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people’s behaviour.
Found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group.

Minority Influence
Nemeth (1986) claimed minorities encourage broader thinking in majorities. The wider society critically evaluate minority viewpoints and leads to better decision making. This shows dissenting minorities as important in social change.

Majority Influence
Mackie (1987) believes majorities may create deeper processing
than minorities if you do not share their views as it forces us to consider their view more deeply. This suggests minority influence may not be a valid explanation of social change.