social influence Flashcards
what is compliance?
this is superficial and temporary.
we outwardly go along with the majority but privately disagree.
change in behaviour only last as long as we are in the presence of a group.
what is identification?
this is a moderate type of conformity.
we act the same way as the group as we value it and want to be a part of it.
dont necesarily agree with everything the majority believes.
what is internalisation?
deepest type of conformity.
we take on the majority view as we accept it as correct.
leads to far reaching and permanent change in behaviour even if group was absent.
what was deutsch and gerards two process theory?
this theory was based on two central human needs.
informational social influence is the need to be right, it says we agree with the majority as we believe its correct and we want to be correct as well. this can lead to internalisation. its a cognitive process as its to do with what you think. its most likely to occur in situations that are new to a person or that have some sort of ambiguity.
normative social influence is the need to be liked. it says we agree with the majority as we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. it can lead to compliance. its most likely to occur in situations with strangers where we are concernd with rejection, or with people we know as we are concerned about getting social approval from friends.
what is a strength of deutsch and gerards two process theory?
an advantage is its supported by research. lucas et al 2006 asked students to give answers to hard or easy maths questions. he found greater conformity to incorrect answers if they were difficult questions. this shows people conform in situations where they dont know the answer - the ISI explanation.
what are the 2 weaknesses of deutsch and gerards two process theory?
a weakness is individual differences in NSI. NSI doesnt affect everyone in the same way e.g. those not concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those concerned with being liked. these people have greater need for affiliation - nAffliators. mcghee and teevan 1967 found students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform. this shows the desire to be liked underlies confomrity for some more than others.
another weakness is that normally both ISI and NSI are involved, not one and another like Deutsch and gerard said. for example, conformity is reduced when theres a dissenting participant - Asch study. the dissenter can reudce the power of NSI or ISI. this shows we cant be sure if NSI or ISI is at work. this is the case in lab studies but truer in real life conformity situations. this casts doubt over ISI and NSI as two independent processes.
describe asch research into conformity
asch used 123 american male undergraduates. the aim was to test conformity. they showed participants 2 white cards - one had a standard line and the other had 3 comaprison lines with one matching the standard.
he had groups of 6-8 confederates with 1 naive participant.
in the first few trials confederates gave right answers but then gave wrong ones. there were 18 total trials only 12 ‘critical’ ones where the wrong answer was given.
naive gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time. 25% of the time particpants didnt conform on any trials. 75% conformed at least once.
the term ‘asch effect’ is the extent partcicpants conform in unambiguous situations.
the participants were interviewed after and said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
describe asch research into conformity - variations
asch did 3 further variations.
1. group size where they found with 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%. adding more confederates made no difference.
2. unanimity where they introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. the dissenting confederate meant conformity reduced by 1/4.
3. task difficulty where they made the comparison and standard line more similar and conformity increased. ISI plays a bigger role when theres a harder task as people look to others for help.
what are the three disadvantages of aschs conformity research?
one weakness is that its artificial. participants knew they were in a study so may have gone along with the demand characteristi. identifying lines is a simple task that we dont do in real life situations so we overall cant generalise it to everyday situations.
another weakness is that it could be a child of its time. perrin and spencer 1980 replicated achs study with engineering students in the UK - only 1 student conformed in 396 trials. 1950s in america were very conformist so it made sense to conform to establish social norms. this means the asch effect isnt consistent across situations and time so isnt a fundamental feature of human behaviour.
another disadvantage is the limited application of findings. asch only tested men and other research suggests women could be more conformist as they have more concern over social relationships (neto 1995). the US is an individualist culture and studies done in collectivist cultures like china have found higher conformity rates. this is due to cultures like this being more oriented to group needs (bond and smith 1996). aschs findings may only apply to american men as he didnt take gender or cultural differences into account.
describe zimbardos research into conformity
zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of stanford university. he advertised for students willing to volunteer and selcted the ‘emotionally stable’ ones after psychological testing. students were randomly allocated role of guards or prisoner.
‘prisoners’ arrested in their own homes by local police and then got taken to the ‘priosn’. they were blindfolded, deloused, given a uniform and number.
the social roles of prisoners and guards were strictly divided. prisoners daily roles were heavily regulated. they had 16 rules to follow that were enforced by guards in shifts of 3. they only used prisoners numbers to refer to them.
guards had a uniform of a wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. they had complete power over prisoners.
what were the results of zimbardos study into conformity?
the study stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14. in 2 days prisoners rebelled against the harsh treatment of the guards. they ripped uniforms, swore and shouted at guards.
guards harassed the prisoners - they conducted headcounts in the night and punished smallest misdemeanour.
the prisoners rebellion got put down and they became subdued, anxious and deoressed. 1 prisoner was released on the 4th day, 1 went on a hunger strike and the guards tried to force feed him and put him in a dark small closet.
the guards behaviour was brutal and aggressive.
what is the strength of zimbardos research into conformity?
a strength is that zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over the variables. they selcted the most emotionally stable participants and randomly assigned them to their roles. this is how they tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanantion of their findings, the guards and prisoners behaved very differently but as the roles were chance then the behaviour must be because of the pressure of the situation. high control over variables means high internal validity.
what are the 2 weaknesses of zimbardos research into conformity?
a weakness is that theres ethical issues. zimbardo had a dual role in the study and when 1 participant tried to leave zimbardo responded as a superintendent worried about running a prison instead of a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.
another weakness is that zimbardo minimised the role of personality (dispositional) factors. Fromm 1973 said zimbardo exagerated the power of the situation e.g. only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally. another 1/3 wanted to apply the rules fairly and the rest tried to help the prisoners and sympathise with them. suggests zimbardos conclusion that particpants conformed to social roles may be overstated. difference in guards behaviour inidicates they could exercise rights and wrongs even with situational pressures.
describe milgrams research into obedience
milgram wanted an answer to why germans followed hitlers orders and killed over 10 million jews - he wanted to know if germans were different e.g. were they more obedient?
he used 40 male participants and recruited them through newspaper ads. they were aged 20 - 50 and had jobs from unskilled to professionals. they were offered $4.50 to take part. there was a rigged draw for roles. the confederate was always the ‘learner’ and the naive was the ‘teacher’. there was an experimenter (another confederate) in a lab coat. the participants were told they could leave at any time.
learner was strapped into a chair in another room with electrodes and the teacher was required to give the learner increasingly severe electric shocks if they made a mistake on a learning task (word pairs). the shocks were demonstrated to the teacher but the rest were fake.
the shocks started at 15 volts ‘slight shock’ label and rose to 450 volts ‘danger severe shock’. when the teacher got to 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and didnt respond to the next question. at 315 volts they hit the wall again and gave no further response.
if the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance the experimenter said “the absence of a response should be treated as a wrong answer” (standardised instruction). if they were unsure on continuing the experimenter gave 4 prods - 1. please continue, 2. experiment requires you continue, 3. absolutely essential you continue and 4. you have no choice must go on.
what were the findings of milgrams research into obedience?
milgram found no participants stopped below 300 volts, 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to 450 volts.
qualitative date was collected and they observed signs of tension like sweat.
3/40 participants had seizures.
all the participants were debriefed and sent a follow up questionnaire where 84% said they were glad they took part.
what are the 2 strengths of milgrams research into obedience?
one strength is that theres good external validity. a big feature was the relationship between the authority figure (experimenter) and the participant. milgram said the lab environment reflected authority relationships in real life. hofling et al 1966 found nurses levels obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were high (21/22 obeyed). suggest obedience in milgrams study can be generalised to other situations.
another strength is supporting replications. ‘le jeu de la mort’ was a documentary on french reality TV (2010). it had a replication of milgrams study. they were paid to give shocks to a participant (actually an actor). 80% delivered the max shock of 450 volts to an apparently unconscious man. the behaviour was similar to milgrams participants e.g. nail biting. this shows milgrams findings werent just a one off chance.
what is the weakness of milgrams obedience study?
the weakness is that theres low internal validity. orne and holland 1968 said participants was due to believing in set up. this means milgram may not have been testing what he wanted. gina perry 2013 confirms this as she listened to tapes of the study and found many participants expressed doubt about the shocks.
describe milgrams situational variables
- proxmimity - teacher and learner in same room obedeicne dropped from 65% to 45%. in another variation the teacher forced the learners hand onto the ‘electroshock’ plate and obedience drop to 30%. in a third variation experimenter gave instructions over phone obedience reduced to 20.5%.
- location - study was done in a run down building instead of the university (Yale) where the original study was done. the experimenter had less authority so obedience fell to 47.5%.
- uniform - in the original study the experimenter wore a lab coat but in a variation the experimenter got called away and the role was taken over by ‘an ordinary member of public’ in everyday clothes. obedience dropped to 20%.
what are the 2 strengths of milgrams situational variables?
one strength is research support. other studies have shown the influence of situational variables of obedience. a field experiment in NYC by bickman 1974 had 3 confederates, one in a jacket and tie, one in a milkmans outift and one in a security guard uniform. confederates stood in the street and told passerbys to perform tasks like picking up litter. people were 2x as more likely to obey security than the jacket and tie. this supports milgrams conclusion of uniform conveying authority.
another strength is cross culturall replications. miranda et al 1981 found obedience was over 90% in Spanish students. suggests findings arent just limited to american males but are valid across cultures and gender as well.
what is the weakness of milgrams situational variables?
the weakness is the lack of internal validity. orne and holland criticised the original study as they thought participants figured out it was fake. this is more likely in variations due to the extra manipulation, like in the uniform variation where even milgram said the situation was very contrived so people could work out the truth. it means its unclear if the results are due to obedience or as they saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
explain resistance to social influence - social support
social support can help people resist conformity.
pressure to conform can be reduced if others arent conforming. we saw this in asch study where the person not conforming doesnt have to be right but the fact they arent conforming means the person is free to follow their own conscience. this person acts as a ‘model’. if the non conformer conforms then so does the naive participant.
social support can help people resist obedience.
pressure to obey dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. others disobedience is a ‘model’ and it allows them to act from their own conscience.
explain resistance to social influence - locus of control
rotter 1966 proposed locus of control. theres an internal vs external control.
externals tend to believe things happen without their own control.
internals tend to believe what happens to them is largely controlled by themselves.
theres a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other. low internal and external LOC lies inbetween.
if you have an internal LOC they are more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey as they are more self-confident and intelligent, have less need for social approval and take responsibility for actions which means they are more likely to base their decisions on their own views and so resist pressure.
what are the 2 strengths of resistance to social influence - social support
strength is research support in resistance to conformity. is supports the role of dissenting peers. allen and levine 1971 found a decrease in conformity if 1dissenter in asch type study, even if disssnter had thick glasses and said they had difficulty with vision. supports view that resistance is not just motivated by following what others say but it also enables freeness from group pressure.
another strength is that theres research support for resistance to obedience and role of dissenting peers. gamson et al 1982 found higher resistance levels as participants were in groups. 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled. shows peer support is linked to greater resistance.
what is the strength of resistance to social influence - locus of control
the strength is research evidence supporting the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. holland 1967 repeated milgrams baseline study to see if people were internals or externals. 37% of internals didnt continue to the highest shock level but 23% externals didnt. internals showed greater resistance to authority.
what is the weakness of resistance to social influence - locus of control
a limitation is that not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance. twenge 2004 analysed data from american LOC studies over 40 years (1960 - 2002). the data showed that over time people are more resistant to obedience and have become more external. if resistance was linked to an internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal over time. this challenges the link between internal LOC and increasingly resistant behaviour. but its also possible that the results are due to a changing society where many things are out of our control.
explain minority influence
minority influence refers to situations where 1 person/ small group influence the beliefs and behaviours of others. its most likely to lead to internalisation. the main processes are process of change, flexibility, commitment and consistency.
consistency in minorities views increases interest from others. synchronic is where they all say the same thing, diachronic is where they all say the same thing over time. it makes people rethink their own views.
commitment is engaging in extreme activities to draw attention to their views. it needs to be risky to shows the minority is committed. it leads to augmentation principle (the majority start to value the importance of the cause as the minority are risking their lives for it).
flexibility is needs to show the possibility of compromise otherwise the minority can be seen as unreasonable.
the process of change is when all 3 factors outlined help deeper processing and thinking about new topics. an increasing numbers switch from majority to minority and the more this happens the faster conversion occurs (snowball effect) till the minority becomes the majority.
what are the 2 strengths of minority influence?
a strength is that theres research support for consistency. Moscovici et al showed consistent minority opinions had greater effect than inconsistent ones. wood et al 1994 did meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found consistent minorities were the most influential.
another strength is research support for depth of thought. martin et al 2003 gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured support. one group heard minority group agree with the initial view, the other group heard from the majority. participants were then exposed to a conflicting view and their attitudes were measured again. they were less willing to change their opinion if they listened to the minority instead of the majority. this suggests the minority message was more deeply processes and had a more enduring effect. this supports the central argument on how minority influence process works.
what is the weakness of minority influence?
the weakness is that the tasks involved in the research are normally artificial. its not comparable to real-life situations. normally outcomes are more important. findings in minority influence studies lack external validity.
describe social influence and social change
there are steps in how minority influence creates social change.
1. draw attention - through social proof
2. consistency - lots of drawing attention (e.g. marches)
3. deeper processing - attention means people who just accept the issue can start to see the other side (minorities side)
4. augmentation principle - if an individual risks their life it so majority start to value importance
5. snowball effect - change from minority to majority
6. social cryptomnesia - have a memory of change but not a memory of how it happened
what is the strength of social influence and social change?
a strength is research support for normative social influence. nolan et al 2008 investigated if social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in community. they hung messages on the front door of houses in San Diego for 1 month. the message was that most residents are trying to reduce their energy. they had control posters with no reference to others. in the 1st group they found a decrease in energy usage which shows conformity can lead to social change.
what are the 2 weaknesses of social influence and social change?
one weakness is that minority influence is only indirectly effective. social change happens slowly - it took decades for attitudes against drink driving and smoking to change so do minorities really have an influence? nemeth 1986 argues the effects of minority influence are most likely delayed and indirect. this shows minority influence effect is fragile and their role in social influence is limited.
another limitation is that the role of deeper processing has been challenged. mackle 1987 presents evidence that its majority influence that may create deeper processing if you dont share their views. this is because we like to believe other people share our views and think in the same ways as us. when we find the majority believes something different then we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning. this means a central element of minority influence process has been challenged and may be incorrect, casting doubt over the validity of Moscovici theory.
explain agentic state
an ‘agent’ is someone who acts in place of or for another and tends to feel moral strain. agentic state is feeling no responsibility for our behaviour as we believe we are acting for an authority figure so it frees us from our conscience.
autonomous state is the opposite. we are free to behave according to our own principles and feel responsibility for our own acts.
the shift from autonomy to agency is the agentic shift and occurs when a person perceives someone as authority as they have greater power due to social hierarchy. believe remain in agentic state due to binding factors which allow the person to ignore the damaging effect of behaviour.
explain legitimacy of authority
legitimacy of authority is when we are more likely to obey people we percieve to have authority over us e.g. teachers, police, parents. a consequence is some people have power to punish others like how most of us accept the police have the power to punish wrongdoers. learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood. legitimate authority can be destructive. history shows charismatic and powerful leaders (e.g. hitler) can use thier authority for destructive purposes and order people to behave in cruel ways.
what is the strength of agentic state?
a strength is research support. blass and Schmitt 2001 showed a film of milgrams study to students and asked them to say who they thought was responsible for the harm to the learner. students blamed the experimenter and indicated the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (the experimenter was top of the social hierarchy) and expert authority (as he was a scientist). they recognised legitimacy of authority as the cause of obedience supporting this explanantion.
what is the weakness of agentic state?
a weakness is its a limited explanation as agentic shift doesnt explain many research findings like how some participants didnt obey (humans are social animals and involved in social hierarchies so should obey). agentic shift also doesn’t explain hofling et al study. agentic shift explains predicts that as nurses handed over respnsibilty to the doctors they should feel some anxiety like milgrams participants but they didnt. suggest agentic state can only account for some for some situations of obedience.
what is the strength of legitimacy of authority?
a strength of legitimacy of authority is that its a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. many studies show countries change in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. mann and kilham 1974 replicated milgrams procedure in Australia and found 16% went to 450 volts. this shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be perceived as legitimate. reflects the way different societies are structured and how kids are raised to perceive authority. support from such cross-cultural research increases the validity of this explanantion.
describe authoritarian personality
adorno wanted to understand anti-semitism in the holocaust. Adorno 1950 used over 2000 middle class white americans to see their unconscious attitudes to other racial groups and they used the fascism scale (f-scale) to measure authoritarian personality.
they found people with authoritarian leanings (scored high on the f-scale) identified with strong people and are contemptuous of the weak. they are conscious of status and have high respect to those of higher status. authoritarians had a cognitive style with fixed stereotypes and there was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
describe authoritarian personality - characteristics
adorno concluded that those with authoritarian characteristics have a tendency to be obedient and have extreme respect for authority. had high conventional attitudes to sex, raw and gender and think we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values. have a strong right and wrong with no ‘grey’ areas.
describe authoritarian personality - originates from
adorno said authoritarian personality is due to harsh parenting with strict discipline and very high standards. characterised by conditional love which creates hostility and resentment in the child which they cant express to parents due to fear of reprisal. they displace this fear onto others who they perceive as weaker (scapegoating). this is a psychodynamic explanantion.
what are the 3 limitations of authoritarian personality?
one weakness is that its a limited explanantion as its an individual explanation so cant really explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countrys population e.g. pre war Germany million were obedient, racist, anti-semitic even though their personalities must differ. its unlikely they all had authoritarian personality. an alternative explanantion like social identity is more realistic. the majority of germans identified with the anti semetic nazis and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of jewish people.
another limitation is that the f-scale measures tendency towards extreme form of right wing ideology. christie and jahoda 1954 argued its a politically based interpretation of authoritarian personality. they point out the reality of left wing authoritarianism in the shape of chinese Maoism. in fact extreme right wing and left wing ideologies have much in common, they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority. this means Adornos theory isnt a comprehensive dispositional explanation that can account for obedience to authority across the political spectrum.
the last weakness is that there are methodological problems. the explanation is based on flawed methodology from the f-scale. each ‘item’ is worded in the same direction so its possible to get a high score just by ticking down a line of boxes on one side. they might not be authoritarian, just acquiescers and the scale is just measuring the tendency to agree. adorno and colleagues interviewed participants on their childhood experiences, but they know the participant’s test scores (so knew who had authoritarian personality), which could lead to bias.
