Social Influence Flashcards
types of conformity
compliance
internalisation
identification
in- both change
id- change to allign group eg work
c-change pub not priv
Explanations for conformity + AO3
Normative social influence (desire to be liked)
Informative social influence (desire to be right)
AO3
:) ISI Lucas et al maths
:( ISI individual differences students e.g. less conformist (28% vs 37%)
:) NSI - asch research support( writing answers 12.5% conformity)
:( NSI individual differences
Asch + AO3
123 male USA students
Participants identified length of line and has to answer out loud the corresponding line
Confederates gave wrong answers 12/18 trials
36.8% conformity rate
75% conformed at least once (25% never did)
participants conformed to avoid rejection (nsi, compliance)
:( child of it’s time (Perrin and Spencer 1 in 396, 1950s conforming culture)
:( artificial (low ecological validity) demand characteristics
:( only apply to collectivist (american, bias)
:( ethics
Asch variables
unanimity (truthful confederate or dissenting but inaccurate)
decreased conformity
task difficulty (lines similar length)
ISI- increased with difficulty
group size (between1-15)
2 confederates = 13.6% 3= 31.8%
-curvier relationship, conformity increased with group size but only to a certain point
Zimbardo + AO3
mock prison in basement of stanford university
21 student volunteers (tested for emotional stability)
randomly assigned roles
test if brutality of prison guards was to do with personalities or situation
prisoners arrested at home
de-individualisation (numbers not names and guards sunglasses)
Guards quickly adapted to roles (threatened prisoners psychological and physical health) and prisoners rebelled (within 2 days)
frequent headcounts at night
1 went on hunger strike who was punished in ‘the hole’ , 1 released due to psychological disturbance
stopped after 6/14 days
all conformed to roles
AO3
:) control (emotionally stable participants randomly allocated role, behaviour due to pressures of social role) internal validity
:( realism (play acting - performances reflected stereotypes, cool hand luke) HOWEVER 90% conversations about prison
:( ethics (withdrawal, deception, consent, harm)
:( exaggerated, 1/3 of guards behaved in brutal manner, others sympathised with them by offering cigarettes etc
Milgram + A03
40 male participants between 20-50yrs , newspaper ad for ‘memory study’
‘drew lots’ for roles but confederate was always learner
learner strapped to chair out of sight attached to electrodes ready to shock
15vz-450vz
before study 14 psychology students predicted 3% reach 450vz
prods:
1)please continue
2)requires you to continue
3)absolutely essential
4)no other choice
100% 350vz
65% 450vz
participants showed signs of extreme tension (sweat, groans, biting lip)
findings unexpected (3% prediction)
AO3
:) external validity (reflects wider real life authority relationships, Hofling - nurses obedience 21/22)
:) replication (french tv show 80% 450vz)
:( ethics (deception, harm, withdraw)
situational variables - Milgram + AO3
proximity- same room (40%) touch (30%)
location- run down office (47.5%)
uniform- ordinary (20%)
AO3
:) Bickman coin for parking - jacket and tie, milkman, security (twice as likely to obey security than jacket and tie)
:( artificial
:( ethics
:) replication, dutch, 90% obeyed
agentic state
(Social-psychological explanations)
obedience to destructive authority occurs when we become an ‘agent’ - not an unfeeling puppet, experience high anxiety when they realise their immoral acts but feel powerless to disobey
in agentic state individual feels no responsibility for their actions
autonomous is opposite (agentic shift) when they feel someone else has more authority than the,
binding factors reduce moral strain (allows to minimise damage) e,g learner was foolish to volunteer
A03
:) Blass and schmidt showed students film of milgram experiment. students blamed experimenter rather than participant
:) real life - my lai massacre orders of killing, rape and destruction
:( some don’t obey but should all, Hofling- nurses didn’t show anxiety (only accounts for obedience)
Legitimacy of authority
(Social-psychological explanations)
obey people at top of social hierarchy (teachers, parents, security)
accept authority figures and allow them to use power due to allow society to run smoothly
give up some independence to them
charismatic leaders use power destructively
-e.g Hitler and prods in milgrams experiment = destructive authority
AO3
:) Blass and schmidt showed students film of milgram experiment. students blamed experimenter rather than participant
:) real life - my lai massacre orders of killing, rape and destruction (doing duty)
:( Rank and Jacobson, 16/18 nurses disobeyed doctors orders of excessive drug dosage
:( mandel, obedience alibi
Authoritarian personality
(Dispositional explanations)
Adorno, F-scale, holocaust
extreme respect for authority, conventional attitudes towards race and gender
inflexible outlook on the world, no grey areas
strict upbringing, high standards severe criticism
scapegoat fear of parents onto those inferior
Adorno + AO3
2000 mc white Americans
f scale (facism)
those who scored high on f scale identified with strong people and showed excessive respect
cognitive style- no fuzziness between people (fixed, distinctive stereotypes)
AO3
:( limited explanation (germany- not all same personality)
:( politically biased f scale (extreme right wing ideology)
:( methodology (directionality, measures tendency to agree with everything)
:)Milgram, interviewed participants from shock experiment, those who obeyed scored higher than those who didn’t HOWEVER, upon analysis didn’t have correct characteristics e.g didn’t glorify father, link is complex
social support
(Resistance to social influence)
pressure to conform is reduced if others aren’t conforming
Asch- dissenter doesn’t even have to be correct
doesn’t last long if dissenter conforms again
pressure to obey too is reduced with social support
milgram- disobedient peer from 35%-90%
A03
:) research evidence, allen and levine, independence increasing with one dissenting peer asch type study
minority influence + AO3
leads to internalisation through 3 processes:
1-consistency(gains interest)
synchronic- all same
diachronic- same for time
2-commitment (gains attention) augmentation principle
3-flexibility (don’t appear rigid, reasonable to counters)
snowball- minority becomes majority
AO3
:) moscovici research support, wood et al meta analysis found consistency most influential
:( artificial tasks (lacks external validity)
Lessons from minority influence research + AO3
(social influence and social change)
1)DRAWING ATTENTION civil right marches drew attention to segregation
2) CONSISTENCY minority marched but consistently
3) deeper processing
4) augmentation principle
5)snowball effect
6)social cryptomnesia
A03
:) Nolan- energy uses on doors (significant decrease in energy uses) social change through NSI
:( methodology - asch, Milgram and moscovici all atritficial situations
:) minority influence explains change
LOC (Resistance to social influence)
Rotter
internal- down to self (independent)
external- down to surroundings (fate/environment)
internal LOC - less likely to obey or conform
LOC continuum, not just external or internal, position on scale varies high/low external/internal
AO3
:) Holland, repeated milgram, 37% internals didn’t go to highest, 23% externals didn’t - internals greater resistance
:( Twenge, found people have become more independent so we would expect more internals
:( exaggerated, only influential in new situations
