social influence Flashcards
1
Q
explanations for conformity
A
normative social influence
- desire to liked (fit in)
- emotional process
- occurs in unfamiliar situations
informational social influence
- desire to be right
- cognitive process
- occurs in ambiguous situations (not clear what’s right)
2
Q
types of conformity
A
compliance
- lowest level of conformity
- only public behaviour changes
- private beliefs stay the same
- short term change
- result of NSI
identification
- middle level of conformity
- public behaviours changes
- private beliefs change only when in presence of group they are identifying w
- short term change
- result of NSI
internalisation
- deepest level of conformity
- public behaviour + private beliefs change
- long term change
- due to ISI
3
Q
conformity
asch
line judgement task
A
method:
- 123 ppts made to believe they were taking part in a vision test
- each ppt was tested individually using a line judgement task, w 6-8 confederates
- had to identify which comparison line was closest in length to the standard
- each ppt completed 18 trials
- on 12 critical trials, confederates gave the wrong answer
results:
- on avg, ppts conformed on 32% of the critical trials
- 74% of ppts conformed at least once
- only 26% of ppts never conformed
- most ppts that conformed knew their answers were incorrect but still went along w the group to fit in, exhibiting NSI
4
Q
variations of asch
A
group size
- w 2 confederates, conformity was 12.8%
- w 3, it rose to 32%
- adding anymore made little difference
unanimity
- asch introduced a dissenting confederate who gave the correct answer
- conformity dropped from 32% to 5%
task difficulty
- asch made the line judgement task harder by making comparison lines more similar in length
- conformity increased when task was more difficult
- ppts more likely to believe the confederates were right
- this displays a shift from NSI to ISI
5
Q
asch
ao3
A
✔ controlled lab experiment
- high degree of control over variables
- more confident drawing conclusions
- minimises extraneous variables
- high internal validity
- and also very replicable + easy method
COUNTER POINT
✘ demand characteristics
- ppts aware they’re being studied
- due to controlled environment, ppts likely to figure out the aim of the investigation
- may answer according to what they believe the researcher wants to hear
- responding to demand characteristics instead of social pressure from the group
- thus finding may not reflect effect of social pressure on conformity
- challenges internal validity
✘ lacks temporal validity
- outdated - took place in 1950s
- was a conformist time in america compared to now
- difficult to generalise to today’s society
- more recent studies have shown significantly less conformity
- findings aren’t consistent over time
✘ artificial task
- line judgement task isn’t applicable to everyday life
- confederates don’t resemble groups in everyday life
- can’t generalise to everyday situations
- task of identifying lines is trivial - no reason not to conform
- thus likely to have different effects in situations where consequences of conformity are actually important
- low ecological validity
6
Q
conformity to social roles
zimbardo
stanford prison experiment
A
method:
- set up a mock prison at stanford university
- to investigate how easily people would conform to social roles of guard + prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life
- involved 21 emotionally stable male volunteers - randomly assigned roles of either guard or prisoner
findings:
- ppts quickly identified w their social roles
- within days, prisoners rebelled + guards dehumanised the prisoners
- experiment was set to run for 2 weeks but was terminated after just 6 days
- supports situational explanation of behaviour rather than the dispositional explanation
7
Q
zimbardo
ao3
A
✘ overstated the role of situational influences on conformity to social roles
- only a third of the guards behaved brutally (conformed to social roles)
- other 2 thirds either applied rules fairly or supported the prisoners
- differences in the guards’ behaviour show they could exercise right and wrong choices despite situational pressures to conform to a role
- zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of the situation + understated dispositional influences
✘ major ethical issues
- zimbardo was both lead researcher + prison superintendent
- these 2 roles conflicted w each other
- eg a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to zimbardo who responded as a superintendent, worried about the running of the prison, rather than as a researcher
- this limited his ability to protect his ppts from harm
8
Q
obedience
agentic state
A
- occurs when we act on behalf of another person
- frees us from demands of our consciences
- feels no personal responsibility for their actions
9
Q
autonomous state
A
- opposite of agentic state
- free to behave according to their own principles
- feels responsibility for their actions
10
Q
agentic shift
A
- shift from autonomous state to agentic state
- occurs when a person defers to an authority figure
11
Q
binding factors
A
- aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
- thus reduce the moral strain they feel
- strategies individual uses to shift responsibility to the victim
- eg “he was foolish to volunteer”
12
Q
obedience
legitimacy of authority
A
- suggests we are more likely to obey people who we think have authority over us
- authorities have legitimacy through society’s agreement
- destructive authority = powerful leaders (eg hitler, stalin) using their authority for destructive purposes
13
Q
obedience
milgram
A
method:
- to investigate to what extent people will obey, even when orders go against their moral principles
- 4o male ppts (could leave at any time)
- assigned role of ‘teacher’
- confederate ‘learner’ strapped in chair in next room
- teacher had to give electric shock to learner every time they made a mistake
- experiment continued until ppt refused to continue or 450 volts was reached
- if teacher tried to stop, experimenter would say: “the experiment requires that you continue.”
findings:
- all ppts went to at least 300 volts
- 65% continued until the full 450 volts
- shows inhumane + immoral acts can be committed by ordinary people
- situational factors led people to lose their autonomy + become agents of an authority figure
14
Q
milgram
ao3
A
✔ good ecological validity
- milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between the experimenter + the ppt reflected wider real-life authority relationships
- hofling et al found that levels of obedience in nurses on a hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were v high
- 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed
- therefore milgrams findings can be generalised to real life situations
15
Q
milgram’s variations
situational variables
A
- can be used as an explanation for obedience
- these are related to the external circumstances that may affect obedience levels
- milgram himself has investigated 3 of these variables in different variations of his original study
16
Q
proximity
A
- 3 different variations:
- where teacher and learner were put in the same room
- where teacher had to force the learners hand onto the shock plate
- where experimenter left the room and gave instructions over phone
- each variation led to an increasing drop in obedience
- due to higher levels of moral strain - feel more personally responsible for their actions
- whereas in og study, ppts were likely to be in an agentic state as they felt were acting on behalf of the experimenter
- due to the binding factors milgram put in place for the person to minimise/ignore the damaging effect of their actions.
17
Q
uniform
A
- og experimenter wearing white lab coat called away at the beginning of procedure
- replaced by ‘ordinary member of public’ in regular clothes
- caused obedience levels to drop to 20%, lowest of these variations
- demonstrates the huge influence uniform has on obedience
- suggests that uniform acts as strong visual authority symbol and someone in uniform would more likely be perceived as a source of legitimate authority
- allowing ppts to perceive them as someone they feel they should obey
18
Q
location
A
- study took place in a run-down building instead of prestigious university setting where it was originally conducted
- caused obedience levels to fall
- could also be due to the effect of prestige on the legitimacy of the experimenter’s authority
19
Q
situational variables
ao3
A
✘ demand characteristics
- ppts were even more likely to realise that the procedure was fake and they were being tested due to extra experimental manipulation
- e.g. in uniform variation, even milgram himself recognised that this was so contrived, ppts may have worked it out
- due to this, unclear how reliable results are since we don’t know if ppts saw the deception and played along or not
- lowers internal validity
✔ has been replicated in other cultures
- e.g. research found over 90% obedience in spanish students, proving that milgram’s findings are not limited to american males
- however, should be noted that these replications have only taken place in western societies, which are culturally not that different from the usa
- therefore cant generalise his variation findings to everyone.
✘ could be seen as providing an ‘excuse’ for obedience
- taking away the responsibility from the person and placing it on the situation instead
- researchers have claimed this to be offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest that nazis were simply victims of situational factors beyond their control, ignoring any other factors
✔ control over variables
- made sure to systematically alter 1 variable at a time to test effects on obedience, keeping all other variables constant
- control gives us more certainty that the changes in obedience levels were caused by variable manipulation by milgram
- showing cause and effect relationships
20
Q
dispositional factors for obedience
authoritarian personality
A
- identified by adorno et al
- refers to people w extreme respect for authority
- tendency to be especially obedient to authority
- often express contempt for people of ‘inferior’ social status
- have conventional attitudes towards race + gender
21
Q
origin of authoritarian personality
A
- formed from childhood as a result of harsh parenting
- eg: extremely strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism + conditional love (affection from parent depends on how they behave)
- these experiences create resentment and hostility in children
- but they can’t express these feelings directly against parents
- so displace these feelings onto others who are seen as weaker
- this explains hatred of people considered socially inferior
- this is a psychodynamic explanation
22
Q
adorno et al
f-scale
A
- found that individuals who scored highly on the f-scale, identified w ‘strong’ people + showed disrespect towards the weak
- were also status-conscious regarding themselves + others
- showed excessive respect + deference to those of a higher status
23
Q
authoritarian personality
ao3
A
✔ research support for link between authoritarian personality + obedience
- milgram interviewed fully obedient ppts from his study
- and they all scored highly on the F-scale
however, this link is just a correlation
- we cannot conclude that authoritarian personality causes obedience from this
- another extraneous variable that hasn’t been measured may be involved
- eg both obedience + authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education
24
Q
resistance to social influence
social support
A
- pressure to conform is reduced by a dissenting peer
- dissenter acts as a model for others to act from their own conscience
25
26
resistance to social influence
locus of control
* the degree to which people believe they have control over their lives
* measured using a continuum w high internal on 1 end + high external on other end
**internals**
* place control w themselves
* believe that things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves
* more likely to resist pressures of social influence
* if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions, more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
**externals**
* externals place control outside themselves
* believe things happen outside their control
* vulnerable to social influence
* act on behalf of others
27
28
minority influence
* form of social influence where minority persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
* leads to **internalisation** where private beliefs are changed as well as public behaviours
* consistency
* committment
* flexibility
29
minority influence
consistency
* **synchronic** = *everyone* saying the same thing
* **diachronic** = saying the same thing *for a while*
* draws interest from others
* makes them rethink their own views
30
minority influence
committment
* may engage in **extreme activities**
* can involve **personal sacrifice**
* shows that they're *not acting out of self interest*
* shows **dedication** to beliefs
* triggers **augmentation principle** - draws attention
31
minority influence
flexibility
* could be counterproductive if seen as unbending + unreasonable so should accept possibility of **compromise**
32
snowball effect
* over time, increasing numbers of people convert from majority to minority position
* gradually, minority becomes the majority
33
minority influence
moscovici et al
**method:**
* ppts shown 36 slides, all different shades of blue
* in 1 condition (consistent), the 2 confederates said that all 36 slides were green
* in the other (inconsistent), the confederates said that 24 were green + rest were blue
**findings:**
* in **consistent** condition, ppts agreed on **8.2%** of the trials
* in **inconsistent** condition, ppts agreed on **1.25%** of trials
* shows that consistent minority is more effective than an inconsistent minority
* **consistency is an important factor in minority influence**
34
minority influence
ao3
✔️ **wood et al**
- carried out meta-analysis of 100 similar studies + found that minorities who were most consistent were most influential
- suggesting consistency is a major factor in minority influence
✔️ **research support for internalisation**
- variation of moscovici's study where ppts wrote answers down instead so answers were private
- private agreement w minority was greater
✘ **limited real world application**
- in real life, not just about numbers
- power, wealth + status also play a role
- these research can't tell us much about real life power dynamics
