Social Influence Flashcards
Milgram: Evaluations
large population
manipulated ppt (good and bad)
low chance of demand characteristics
ethical issues - lied to ppt
ethno/androcentric
Milgram: What signs did ppt show in Milgram’s study
Ppt can be seen showing nervous laughter, twitching, fidgeting, sweating and smoking after the experiment. 3 ppt suffered seizure with only one of them allowed to go to hospital
Milgram: Outline the procedure of milgrams study
- 1961
- 40 white male americans per condition
- paid $4.50 to participate
- Mr Wallace (confederate) played the role of the learner
- ppts played the role of the teacher
- role were allocated “randomly”
- ppts were told Mr Wallace had a heart condition before the study
- ppts told the study was investigating how punishment affects learning
- ppts “electrocuted” Mr Wallace when he got a question wrong
Milgram: What were the results of Milgram’s study
- 100% went up to 300 volts
- 65% went up to 450
- 50% continued after reaching 450
- dropped to 47.5% up to 450 in run down office block compared to yale uni
Milgram: What were the four prompts the researcher gave the participants to continue the study
- please continue
- the experiment requires that you continue
- it is absolutely essential that you continue
- you have no other choice, you must go on
Milgram: What were the different conditions of his study
Location change
proximity to researcher
proximity to Mr Wallace
uniform of researcher
Milgram: What were the conclusions of milgrams study
- all humans are capable of becoming nazis
- if it wasn’t germany, it would have been another country
Asch: Evaluations
- low chance of demand characteristics
- high control over extraneous variables
- low population size
- entho/androcentric
Asch: How is his study unethical
Manipulated ppt, telling them the aim was to test eye sight
Lack of protection from harm - ppt reported feeling stressed when disagreeing with the majority
Asch: What were the 3 main conditions in his study
Group size
Social support
Task difficulty
Asch: What were the results of his study
35% conformed every time
75% conformed at least once
25% never conformed
Zimbardo: What were the advantages of his study
- High ecological validity
- High temporal validity
- All ppt were given a psych eval to ensure they were all mentally healthy
Zimbardo: What were the disadvantaged of his study
- Only took place for 5 days
- Zimbardo played the role of the warden
- Demand characteristics
Zimbardo: How was his study unethical
- Zimbardo allowed assault on the prisoners
- He acted as the warden allowing him to control what events took place
Zimbardo: How were the prisoners treated that could have led to misbehaviour in Zimbardo’s study
Ppt were sent home and told they weren’t right for the study, then arrested the next day. They were booked and dehumanised before being taken to the prison
Zimbardo: What were the results of his study
Police brutality towards inmates causing physical, emotional and sexual assault. Got so bad prisoners rioted on the second day
What are the three types of conformity and their definitions
Compliance - publicly agree with the majority without a change in personal opinion (temporary)
Identification - development of group behaviour, acting similar to the majority due to valuing group membership (lasts as long as the group)
Internalisation - change of behaviour and/or opinion similar to the group (permanent)
What are the two explanations for conformity and their definitions
Informational social influence (ISI) - change in opinion and/or behaviour due to someone else’s response to the same event. You deem them higher in the social hierarchy than you (cognitive)
Normative social influence (NSI) - temporary change in behaviour and/or opinion due to wanting to fit in with the majority (emotional)
What are the two states within social influence and their definitions
Agentic state - giving up personal responsibility to an authority figure (blind obedience)
Autonomous state - actions are fully taken responsibility for without diffusing responsibility
What is legitimacy of authority and how is it recognised
Legitimacy of authority - based on the social hierarchy, the idea no one is equal and there are some people higher than others. This can be recognised through; job, gender, pay, group dynamics etc.
What is an authoritarian personality, what factors contribute to it and how do they contribute
Someone who holds high respect for those higher in the social hierarchy than them, but no respect to those lower in the social hierarchy.
Factors include; might is right - how physical strength determines ones worth, upbringing - if a parent serves then the child will hold higher respect for them and lower respect for people who don’t, personality traits - certain traits such as extreme submission or aggression could alter the extremism, the f scale - whether they are right wing or not.
What is resisting to social influence (RSI) and what factors can affect this
RSI - when someone acts as an individual, defying social pressure. This could be temporary or permanent
Factors include; Social support (when a minority is given an ally who also disagrees with the majority), Internal locus of control (Loc) is the extent to which we think we have control over our own behaviour.
What is minority influence and what are the three main factors which can boost this
Minority influence - when a minority convinces members of the majority to join them until they then become the majority. This links in with informational social influence and internalisation.
Factors include; Consistency, commitment and flexibility.
Describe the three main factors which boost minority influence
Consistency - synchronic consistency is when all members of the group back the same reasons, whilst diachronic consistency is a singular person being consistent with their reasoning.
Commitment - dedication to the same cause over a large period of time. Links in with the augmentation principle (when the minority causes conflict in the majority, convince themselves)
Flexibility - where the minority becomes flexible with their cause, leading to the majority becoming more likely to join.
RENEWED CARDS
DO NOT DELETE
Types of conformity:
Outline what is meant by conformity
altering your behaviour due to social or group pressure (pier pressure)
Types of conformity:
Outline the three types of conformity
- compliance
- identification
- internalisation
Types of conformity:
Outline compliance as a type of conformity
Publicly agreeing with the majority opinion or behaving along with the majority, but privately sharing a different opinion or behaviour
superficial and temporary type
Types of conformity:
Outline identification as a type of conformity
Adopting the opinions and behaviour of the group whilst apart of the group. This includes sharing the opinions and behaviour in private
only lasts the duration of the group membership - return to original behaviour upon expiry
Types of conformity:
Outline internalisation as a type of conformity
Adopting the opinions and behaviour of others publicly and privately in a permanent manner
deepest level of conformity due to overwriting ones initial behaviour
Outline the aim of Asch’s 1951 study
investigating the extent to which social pressure causes people to conform in a majority group
Outline the procedure of Asch’s 1951 study
- 123 participants
- 7 confederates and 1 participant per group sat round a table
- instructed to outline which line, a b or c, was the same length as the separate line.
- 12 of 18 studies, the confederates gave the wrong answer (critical trials)
- 6 of 18 confederates gave the right answer - this was to minimise the likelihood of the participant figuring out the true aim of the study - could have led to demand characteristics or the screw you effect
Outline the results of Asch’s 1951 study
- 75% of participants conformed at least once
- 37% conformed every time
- 25% never conformed
Outline the conclusions of Asch’s 1951 study
with enough social pressure, everyone will conform
Outline the main reasons participants gave for conforming in Asch’s 1951 study
- whilst they knew they were giving the wrong answer, they didn’t want to stand out
- some participants doubted their own judgement so agreed with the majority
Name the conditions of Asch’s 1951 study
- task difficulty
- group size
- unanimity
Outline the differing results in Asch’s 1951 study when the task difficulty was changed
the harder the task, the more people conformed
the easier the task, the less people conformed
doubt yourself more
Outline the differing results in Asch’s 1951 study when the group size was changed
smaller the group, the less people conformed
larger the group, the more people conformed
more people to go against/with
Outline the differing results in Asch’s 1951 study when there was unanimity compared to when there was not
unanimous - increased conformity rate as majority is verbally against you
no unanimous - lowered conformity rate as no one verbally tells you you’re wrong
Give evaluations for Asch’s 1951 study
- only men - androcentrism
- only white - ethnocentrism
- practical applications - jurors are warned not to conform to the other jurors to give a specific verdict
- standardised - high internal validity
Explanations of conformity:
Name the two explanations of conformity
- informational social influence (ISI)
- normative social influence (NSI)
Explanations of conformity:
Outline informational social influence (ISI) as an explanation of conformity
- based on cognitive factors
- when you are not certain of your knowledge or ability so look to others you deem more intellectual than you in a particular area for guidance
- people are deemed more intellectual than you are done via a social hierarchy which is subjective based on what you think yours and their capabilities are
Explanations of conformity:
What type of conformity does informational social influence (ISI) lead to and why
internalisation - changing your opinions/beliefs based on people you deem more intellectual than you
Explanations of conformity:
Give research support for informational social influence (ISI)
Fein et al (2007):
found candidate performance for presidential debates could be influenced by others knowledge or reactions with people showing similar reactions to their peers
Explanations of conformity:
Outline normative social influence (NSI) as an explanation of conformity
- based on emotional factors
- change behaviour due to wanting to fit in and be normal
- if we conform, we gain the respect of other people and will therefore be accepted into the group
Explanations of conformity:
What type of conformity does normative social influence (NSI) lead to and why
compliance - only temporarily changing behaviour whilst around group
Explanations of conformity:
Give research support for normative social influence (NSI)
Asch’s 1951 study
Explanations of conformity:
give evaluations for explanations of conformity
- research support - Asch, Fein et al
- theoretically flawed - doesn’t take into account individual differences - some people never conform
- practical applications - can be used to make people aware of NSI and to avoid doing it - makes people be themselves
Outline the aim of Zimbardo’s 1971 study
to investigate the extent to which people conform to social roles through identification
Outline the procedure of Zimbardo’s 1971 study
- 24 participants - 12 guards, 12 prisoners
- all participants were students of Zimbardo
- all participants had psych evals completed on them to ensure they were all mentally healthy
- participants were told they were chosen for their roles, however they were randomly chosen
- all told they weren’t a good match for the study and sent home. next day were arrested by the police and taken to booking - treated like actual criminals
- prisoners were stripped, searched and shaved before being given their uniform, referred to as numbers - dehumanised
- guards given uniforms and batons
- no experimenter intervention - purely observatory at beginning
- makeshift prison built in the basement of Stanford prison
Outline what happened to prisoner #819 in Zimbardo’s 1971 study
Prisoner #819, real name Barry, was a 20 year old student who experienced severe emotional distress during the study
on day 2 he became agitated and started crying, refusing to talk to the priest and was asking for a doctor
once he had calmed down, he was moved to a different room. the other prisoners were ordered by the guards to stand outside the room and shout ‘Prisoner #819 is a bad prisoner’. when Zimbardo realised Barry could hear this he went back to check on him, and found him crawled up in a ball crying
Barry said he no longer wanted to see the doctor and wanted to go back with the other prisoners to prove he wasn’t a bad prisoner. Zimbardo had to remind him that he wasn’t a prisoner, and that he was a student and it was just an experiment
Barry immediately left the experiment
Outline the results of Zimbardo’s 1971 study
- only 10% of the conversations between prisoners were about life outside of the prison
- the guards rarely exchanged personal information - often talked about ‘problem prisoners’
- guards regularly beat the inmates - reportedly stood of the prisoner’s backs as they were ordered to do push-ups
- riot happened on day 2
- only lasted 6 days - was supposed to last 2 weeks
Outline the conclusions of Zimbardo’s 1971 study
- people will conform to any role given to them
- situation based - not dispositional
Give evaluations of Zimbardo’s 1971 study
- androcentrism, ethnocentrism - poor generalisability
- all participants were Zimbardo’s students - demand characteristics
- standardised - high internal validity
- practical applications - prisoners are more violent due to being dehumanised (given numbers)
- ethically fucked
- led to ethical guidelines - study was so fucked up they made ethical guidelines to stop crap like that happening again
Outline the aim of Milgram’s 1965 study
to what extent do people obey authority figures
Outline the procedure of Milgram’s 1965 study
- 40 male participants
- participants paid $4.50
- roles include teacher and learner
- learner told teacher he had a heart condition before experiment
- experimenter (not Milgram) has participant and confederate choose between two pieces of paper - both say teacher, participant told one says teacher, one says learner
- confederate, Mr Wallace, says he got learner
- the experimenter straps learner to chair with the participant (teacher) watching and explains rules
- teacher reads out pairs of words then reads out first word, learner has to say second word back. if they get it wrong, they get electrocuted at increasing voltage (+15V)
- experimenter shocks teacher before and has them guess the voltage, was 15, avg. guess 40V
- starting voltage - 45V
- learner stops screaming and plays dead at 300V onwards
Outline the results of Milgram’s 1965 study
- 100% of participants when up to 300V, high enough to kill someone
- 65% of participants went up to 450V, highest it could go
Outline the conclusions of Milgram’s 1965 study
- Germans were good people, it wasn’t their fault they fucked up the jews
- Nazi Germany would and could have happened to any country, just the Germans beat everyone else to it
Outline the physical destress signs shown by participants in Milgram’s 1965 study
nervous laughter
twitching
fidgeting
sweating
smoking after the experiment
3 participants suffered seizures, only 1 allowed to go to hospital - other 2 told to get up and continue with the study
Outline the prompts used by the experimenter in Milgram’s 1965 study
- please continue
- the experiment required that you continue
- it is absolutely essential that you continue
- you have no other choice but to continue
these were used whenever the participant would refuse to continue. after the 4th one, participants were allowed to leave
Name the conditions of Milgram’s 1965 study
- uniform
- location
- learner proximity
- experimenter proximity
Outline uniform as a condition in Milgram’s 1965 study
obedience level of 20% (-45%) when experimenter wasn’t wearing a uniform
likely due to less authority as participants believe themselves as equal to the experimenter
loss of legitimacy
Outline location as a condition in Milgram’s 1965 study
originally in Yale university (respected institution)
obedience dropped to 47.5% when held in a run down office block
loss of locational status
Outline learner proximity as a condition in Milgram’s 1965 study
obedience dropped to 30% when learner was in the same room as the teacher
likely due to teacher having to hold the learner’s hand on the metal plate after 150V
Outline experimenter proximity as a condition in Milgram’s 1965 study
reduced obedience when experimenter gave instructions from a different room (via telephone)
even further reduced obedience when the teacher never met the experimenter and all instructions were delivered via a recording
Give evaluations for Milgram’s 1965 study
- poor generalisability - androcentrism, ethnocentrism
- standardised - high internal validity
- reliable - Derren Brown replicated his study getting similar results in 2006
- practical applications - if we instil authority successfully, we can use it to reduce crime
Explanations of obedience:
Name the different explanations of obedience
- agentic state
- legitimacy of authority
- authoritarian personality
Explanations of obedience:
Outline the agentic state as an explanation of obedience
- surrendering ones personal responsibility to an authority figure - diffused responsibility
- opposite of autonomous state - you make decisions for yourself
- relieved responsibility also relieves moral strain
Explanations of obedience:
Outline legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
- socialisation - learning the norms and values of society and obeying them - leads to social cohesion
- social hierarchy - blindly obeying those you deem above you in the social hierarchy
Explanations of obedience:
give evaluations for the agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations of obedience
- research support for agentic state - Milgram
- research support for LoA - Bickman found people were more than twice as likely to obey someone in a security guard outfit when asked to pick up litter than someone in a jacket and tie
- problem as it leads to the ‘obedience alibi’
- practical applications - knowing we obey so easily allows us to prevent bad shit from happening e.g. Nazi Germany
Explanations of obedience:
Outline an authoritarian personality as an explanation of obedience
- might is right - the physically stronger someone is, the more they are worth and therefore the more you should obey them
- upbringing - if you are raised with an authoritative parent then you are more likely to hold higher respect for people higher than you in the social hierarchy. however, you are also more likely to treat everyone below you like scum
- personality traits - extreme submission or aggression influence the extent to which you obey
- the f scale - the more right winged you are the more you believe in the social hierarchy
Explanations of obedience:
Give evaluations for authoritarian personalities as an explanation of obedience
- research support - Elms and Milgram found those who fully obeyed in the original 1965 study scored highly on the f scale compared to the disobedient shits
- lack of cause and effect - we don’t know if an authoritarian personality causes obedience or if obedience causes an authoritarian personality
- practical applications - explains why certain personality traits make you more prone to obeying
Outline factors into the social hierarchy
job
gender
group dynamics
pay
age
Explanations of resistance to social influence:
Name the explanations of resistance to social influence (RSI)
- social support
- internal locus of control (iLoC)
Explanations of resistance to social influence:
Outline what is meant by resistance to social influence (RSI)
when people defy social pressure for conformity and/or obedience
this does not mean they resist entirely, it could be temporarily and they eventually conform or obey with enough social pressure
Explanations of resistance to social influence:
Outline social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence (RSI)
when there is at least one other person who agrees with you, you are more likely to non-conform
the more people that side with you, the less likely you are to conform or obey
Explanations of resistance to social influence:
Give evaluations for social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence
