Social influence

Question 1

what is conformity?

Answer 1

choosing a course of action that is favoured by the majority

Question 2

who proposed the three types of conformity? when? what are they?

Answer 2

Kelman 1958
compliance, internalisation, identification

Question 3

what is compliance?

Answer 3

conforming publicly but privately disagreeing
temporary and shallow

Question 4

what is internalisation?

Answer 4

deepest level- conversion
views taken on deep and permanent level and become part of persons own way of perceiving the world
public and private acceptance

Question 5

identification

Answer 5

accept influences to be accepted into a group
change views publicly and privately however may only be temporary

Question 6

what are they explanations for conformity? who proposed them? problem?

Answer 6

deutsch and gerad
normative social influence- desire to be liked
informational social influence- desire to be right
hard to distinguish between compliance and internalisation (how to measure public compliance and private acceptance)

Question 7

research support for NSI

Answer 7

asch’s study
linkenbach and perkins 2003- told perrs dont smoke and smoking decreased
schultz et al 2008- towels in hotels- reduced usage by 25%

Question 8

research support for ISI

Answer 8

jenness 1932- glass bottle filled with 811 beans. sample of 101 psych students who individually estimated no of beans. split into groups of 3 and provided group estimate. following discussion, could give another opportunity to individually estimate and nearly all change answer. male avg change was 256 and female 382.
changed as believed group estimate more likely to be right

Question 9

individual differences in NSI

Answer 9

less concered with being liked= less affected by nsi
nAffiliators have greater need for relationship with others
McGhee and Teevan 1967 found students in high need of affiliation more likely to conform

Question 10

individual differences in ISI

Answer 10

Asch 1955 found students less conformist that other ptps
perrin and spencer 1980 found very little conformity in study with science and engineering students (self efficacy)
so, doest affect everyone in same way

Question 11

how do NSI and ISI work together?

Answer 11

conformity reduced when there is another dissenting ptp in aschs study. dissenter reduces power of NSI (social support) and ISI (alternative source of info)
shows both play role so cant talk about them as 2 independent processes

Question 12

describe Asch’s 1956 study

Answer 12

aim- see what would happen if participants were exposed to nsi in situation where there could be no doubts about the correct answer
deception- said it was a visual discrimination task and didnt say all but one were confederates and real aim was to see how lone ppt would react
123 male us undergrads look at lines of 3 lengths and say which is same length as standard. real ppt answered second to last
on 12/18 of the trials, confederate said wrong answer
findings- 33% conformity
25% never conformed
50% conformed on 6 or more
1/20 conformed on all
control group w no confederates and only wrong 1% of time so deffo unambiguous answer
compliance- publicly agree privately disagree

Question 13

variables affecting conformity

Answer 13

group size- when majority had 3 confederates, conformity increased to 30%, further increase didnt change signif so only up to a point, Campbell and fairey size has diff effect depending on type of judgement eg no objective answer want to fit in larger group more likely to sway but if want to be correct, only need 1-2 people to sway

unanimity- real ppt given support of another real ppt conformity dropped to 5.5%, or another confederate said answer diff to majority but still wrong and conformity dropped to 9% so breaking unanimity is a major factor

difficulty of task- made line length differences smaller and conformity increased. lucas et al found task difficulty and self efficacy important

Question 14

evaluate Asch’s study

Answer 14

+
reliable- lab and controlled position of ppt in line, length of lines, number of confederates
practical aps-
-
low generalisability- all US male volunteers- us is individualist culture and women more conformist as concerned about social relationships
low validity- ecological (lab) eg irl conform to friends but here, strangers. demand charact eg may have guessed what study was
ethics- deception, informed consent
temporal validity- perrin and spencer repeated in 1980 and saw less conformity perhaps 1950s was especially conformist time (or engineer students were more confident in answer)

Question 15

Zimbardo’s conformity to social roles study

Answer 15

controlled ppt (zimbardo was superintendent) obs
mock prison in basement of stanford uni. male volunteers tested psychologically and physically and 24 most stable were randomly assigned prisoner or guard
$15 a day for 2 weeks
unexpectedly arrested, stripped, deloused, given numbers
guards given uniforms, clubs, whistles and glasses to hide eyes

guards grew more tyrannical towards prisoners and made them do degrading activities. ppts seemed to forget it was a study so conformed even when not watched. 1 ppt asked for parole not to withdraw. 5 released early due to extreme reactions
stud ended after 6 days when post grad pointed out how unethical it was

shows both guards and prisoners conformed to social roles. guards became more sadistic and prisoners became more passive and accepting of plight. shows power of situation to influence behaviour.

Question 16

what is deindividualisation?
what is learned helplessness?

Answer 16

so immersed in norms of group you lose your sense of identity. guards sadistic as didnt feel like what happened was down to them- group norm

prisoners were submissive to guards- learned that whatever they did had little effect so prisoners gave up responding

Question 17

Haslam and reicher’s study

Answer 17

2006 BBC prison study
conducted similar study to Zimbardo
(look up more about it to help evaluate Zimbardo’s study- BBC prison study website)

Question 18

evaluate zimbardos study

Answer 18

+
practical applications eg improved training for prison guards, formal recognition of ethical guidelines, explanation of behaviour in abu ghraib prison
eco valid - arrested/ treated like prisoners
-
not generalisable- small sample, ethnocentric, mentally stable, educated
not reliable- obs, not everyone conformed the same
validity- paid, demand char, not real prison
ethics- deception, informed consent, right to withdraw, protection from harm, but were debriefed after
haslam and reicher oppose zimbardos view (that guards drift into sadistic behaviour automatically by embracing role) and say guards chose how to react. also some prisoners were good.

Question 19

describe Milgram’s obedience study

Answer 19

aim- investigate what level of obedience would be shown when ppts were told by an authority figure to administer and electric shock. inspired by holocaust and wanted to see if germans were different
method- not really experiment as no control condition so controlled obs. iv- prods to carry on, dv- degree of obedience (how far up shock scale they went)
40 male volunteers told theyd take part in study of memory and learning. yale. paid
procedure- greeted by man in lab coat and met mr wallace who was confederate. lab coat said experiment was on effects of punishment on learning. one would be teacher and 1 learner but rigged so mr wallace always learner. mr wallace said he had heart probs when being strapped into chair with electrodes. ppt given real shock of 45v to believe its real. had to deliver shock every time q wrong but not actually real shocks. wrong answers also shock. working up to highest volt. wallace screams (taped so same for each ppt) then quiet. if teacher asked to stop they were told the experiment requires them to continue. same 4 prompts for each ppt then stopped after 4th. then fully debriefed

Question 20

results of milgrams obedience study

Answer 20

65% went to max volt and 100% went to 300 volts. those who stopped stoppee shortly after 300v
behavioural reactions also recorded showing ppts were not at ease. many were trembling, sweating, groaning 3 even had seizures

Question 21

which situational factors affect obedience? percentages from repeats of milgram study

Answer 21

proximity- teacher and learner in same room 40%, teacher force learners hand on shock plate 30%, orders over phone 21%
location- repeated in run down office block- 48% as less confidence in integrity
uniform- bushman 1988- woman asked for people to man help pay expired parking meter. police 72%, business 48% beggar 52%

Question 22

evaluate Milgrams study

Answer 22

+
reliable- repeated lots with similar results and lots of standardisations
practical aps- proves germans arent diff and were all capable of evil behaviour
historical validity- burger 2009 found levels of obedience almost identical to those found by milgram
hofling et al- nurses obeyed and gave patient drug over limit when given order over phone from fake doctor. (obey authority)
-
not generalisable- ethnocentric, all males
ethics- informed consent, deception, protection from harm, right to withdraw, debrief
orne and holland- lacks internal validity as some may have caught on that shocks werent real. taketo murata divided ppts into believers and doubters. believers more likely to disobey
external validity- mandel and the mass killing of jews- most obeyed to kill despite being given another option. milgrams studies would show most wouldnt kill due to presence of factors that would increase defiance eg proximity
obedience alibi- excuse for evil acts. but not all in same situation and not all obeyed so must be some personality too

Question 23

what is an agentic state?
what are binding factors?

Answer 23

when there is a social hierarchy, people will diffuse responsibility for actions to an authority figure. dont feel responsible for own actions. may adopt to maintain + self image

keep someone in an agentic state. there is a social etiquette eg to break off experiment, ppt has to breach commitment made to experimenter so may seem rude

Question 24

what is legitimacy of authority?
what else is needed for people to shift into agentic state?

Answer 24

someone perceived to be in a position of social control. not from their characteristics but from their perceived position

institution is also needed. status of institution eg lab- doesnt even need to be in reputable place but a lab suggests authority

Question 25

evaluate psychological factors in obedience

Answer 25

+
village of My Lai
Tarnow 2000 studied data of US aircraft accidents 1978-1990 where flight crew actions were contributing factor and found excessive dependence on captain. one recalled noticing captain took risky approach but assumed he knew better
-
example irl contradicting agentic state- Lifton 1986 found German doctors in Auschwitz changed from caring medical professionals to people capable of carrying out vile experiments gradually and irreversibly rather than shifting between agentic/ autonomous. Staub 1989 suggests its the experience of carrying out evil acts that changes people not agentic state

agentic state or cruel personality? milgram detected signs off cruelty among ppts who used situation to express sadistic impulses backed up by zimbardo- guards had no authority figure but were evil

alternative explanations eg situational and dispositional

Question 26

how to the situational factors link to psychological factors when explaining obedience?

Answer 26

uniform- visual symbol of legitimacy of authority
location- legitimacy of authority
proximity- real examples shows it doesnt explain very well- Mandel 1998. other factors may e more important

Question 27

what is the authoritarian personality?

Answer 27

dispositional explanation
milgram believed theres a complex personality basis to obedience/dis. study created conflict in people w disposition not to harm people but also to obey authority
authoritarian personality provides explanation for why some people need very little pressure to obey
people who are rigid thinkers, obey authority, see world as b&w and enforce strick adherence to social rules/ hierarchies

Question 28

what is the F scale?
what do the results mean?

Answer 28

used by Adorno et al to measure diff components of authoritarian personality. ppts agree or disagree w statements and this indicates personality

people scoring high on F scale often raised by parents with authoritarian parenting style. grew up with this so expect it

Question 29

Elms and Milgram 1966 study into obedience

Answer 29

follow up study of ppts in one of milgrams studies 2m prior. selected 20 obedient and 20 disobedient ppts and got them to complete MMPI scale and california f scale. also asked lots of open qs about parental relationships as child and attitudes towards experimenter and learner during milgrams study

found little diff between obedient and not on MMPI scale but did with f scale. higher levels of authoritarianism among obedient ppts. also saw differences between obedient and defiant ppts related to authoritarianism eg obedient were less close to fathers and obedient saw authority figure as more admirable than the learner

Question 30

+ and - of dispositional explanations for obedience

Answer 30

+
research support- elms and milgram gives it validity. but suspicion over whether shocks were real or fake. dambrum and vatine overcame this using immersive virtual environ where ppts told it was fake but they still acted as though ti was real

-
opposing views- social context more important- relying solely on disposition lacks flexibility to account for variations (milgram 1974)
cant easily account for whole social groups. eg unlikely that all of those who were obedient grew up in harsh environment
less educated people more authoritarian and also more obedient so lack of education may be the cause. but similar results even when elms and milgram controlled education level

Question 31

what factors affect resistance to social influence?

Answer 31

social support
personality characteristics

Question 32

how does social support help us resist conformity?

Answer 32

breaks unanimous position of majority so raises possibility of there being other answers so make person more confident and able to stand up to majority

asch found presence of social support enables ppt to resist pressure. conformity reduced to 5.5% when another gave right answer

Question 33

how does social support help us resist obedience? study to prove?

Answer 33

disobedient ally acts as role model.
in one of milgrams studies, ppt was in team of 3 teachers. other 2 were confederates but refused to shock which had liberating influence on ppt and only 10% continued to end

Question 34

what is a locus of control?
internal?
external?

Answer 34

peoples perception of personal control over their own behaviours

we control events in our life . things happening are consequence of own actions. display independence in thought and behaviour, rely less on others and resist social influence

what happens is determined by external factors eg influence of others/ luck
fatalistic and passive attitude and take less personal responsibility. less likely to display independent behaviour and more likely to accept influence of others

Question 35

characteristics of internals that have relevance for resisting social influence

Answer 35

active info seekers so less likely to rely on others opinions
achievement- orientated so more likely to be leaders eg Spector 1982 found relationship between LOC and leadership style
better able to resist coercion. Hutchins and Estey 1978 said more intense pressure leads to greater difference between internals and externals performance

Question 36

evaluation of locus of control and social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence

Answer 36

+
allen and levine- visual discrimination task- person less likely to conform if the ally had no glasses- valid social support but did find conformity decreased in both cases so any support useful

rosenstrasse protest- german women protested against gestapo who were holding their jewish family members. did not disperse even when threatened to open fire. prevailed and the men were set free

avtgis- meta analysis of relationship between loc and conformity. found higher external more likley to be persuaded
elms and milgram- check bckg of disobedient ppt in follow up study and found they had higher internal loc
-
contradicting research- twenge et al 2004 found young americans are becoming more external but also more resistant to obedience

alternative explanations- situational factors eg social suppport

Question 37

what 3 things do the minority have to be to be influential?

Answer 37

consistent- majority initially assume minority are in error but if consistent, they are forced to reconsider as there must be a reason minority take that position. Wood et al 1994
commitment- suggests certainty, confidence and courage in face of hostile majority joining minority has greater cost for individual
flexibility- Mugny 1982 says flexibility is better than rigidity as minority often powerless. but, too flexible looks inconsistent

Question 38

what is synchronic consistency?
what is diachronic consistency?

Answer 38

all the people in minority say the same thing
all the minority stays consistent in their views over time

Question 39

Moscovici et al 1969 study of consistency

Answer 39

172 american females
groups of 4 naive ppt and 2 confederates
shown blue slides and asked to judge colour. in consistent condition, confederates repeatedly said they were green, inconsistent said green 2/3rds of time and control was 6 naive who all said blue

consistent got naive to say green on 8% of trials and inconsistent had very little influence

after, asked to sort 16 disks into blue or green- some ambiguous and had to say threshold point of everything after this is blue everything before is green. those in consistent group said more were green

although conformity not as much as with a majority, consistent minority is more influential than inconsistent one

Question 40

evaluation of moscovicis study

Answer 40

+
reliable- controlled variables eg 2 confed and 4 naive, certain amount of time to say green, same slides
prac aps- trying to get point across and make change eg just stop oil- known to be consistent
-
generalisabilty- small sample, female, ethnocentric, diff cultures/ genders may react diff to minority influence so not representative
low eco valid- lab and artificial task, irl, people more passionate about topic- arent about slides
ethics- deception- didnt know some were confederates, so no informed consent. but deception led to high validity

Question 41

evaluate minority influence

Answer 41

+
value- nemeth says it opens minds to consider more options. van dyne and saavedra found improved decision quality in people exposed to a minority perspective

research support for flexibility- nemeth and brilmayer used simulated jury to get members to discuss compensation for someone in ski lift accident- confed put forward other view and others didnt change. when compromised, did exert some influence but only when shifted late in negotiation so didnt seem like pushover

research support for internalisation- variation of moscovici study allowed ppt to write answers in private and showed private agreement w minority was greater- reluctant to admit to public

-
mackie 1987 said views of minority dont necessarily lead to greater processing but majority are more likely to create greater message processing- tend to believe maj have same view as us so if they have diff opinion to us, we consider why this is the case but dont try waste time considering why minority is diff

Question 42

what are the stages of social change through minority influence?

Answer 42

draw attention to issue
cognitive conflict- conflict between what majority currently believe and position of minority- think deeply
consistency
augmentation principle- willing to suffer for their views- taken more seriously
snowball effect- initially small effect then spreads more widely until tipping point reaching wide scale social change

Question 43

what is the social norms approach?

Answer 43

perkins and berkowitz say that if people perceive something to be the norm, they alter behaviour to fit it eg uni students think heavy drinking is norm so drink more. based on perceived norm not actual norm. gap is called misperception

Question 44

what is social norms intervention?
example?

Answer 44

identify misperception within target pop. perception correction strategies used in media to communicate the actual norm so people will modify behaviour to fit behaviour of peers
eg
montana young adults had lots of alcohol related crashes and survey found only 20.4% had drunk driven but 92% said they believed the majority had. by correction misperception, drink driving reduced to 13.7%

Question 45

evaluate social norms intervention
and social change through minority influence

Answer 45

-
very gradual- people conform to majority so dont want to change so minority gives potential for social change rather than actual change

minority perceived as deviant so majority dont want to align with them and be seen as deviant themselves. attention is on source of message not actual message.

not all social norms intervention leads to change eg dejong et al tested effectiveness of it at reducing alcohol use and found despite showing real norm, levels didnt lower

boomerang effect- those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm may engage in more destructive behaviour- schultz et al got people to lower electricity usage but also caused some to use more as they were below norm

Question 46

conformity studies

Answer 46

zimbardo
asch
haslam and reicher
jenness

Question 47

obedience studies

Answer 47

milgram
elms and milgram
hofling
bushman

Question 48

minority influence studies

Answer 48

moscovici
nemeth and brilmayer