Social influence Flashcards

1
Q

Three types of conformity

A

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Compliance

A

Superficial change
In public going along with others
Not changing personal opinions or behaviour
Stops as soon as group pressure stops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Identification

A

Conform because we identify with the group to be a part of it
Publicly change opinions
Don’t privately agree

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Internalisation

A

Person genuinely accepts the group norms
Private and public change in opinions/behaivors
Permanent
Persists in the absence of the group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Explanations for conformity

A

Informational social influence
Normative social influence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

ISI

A

Conforming to be right
Cognitive process - do with what your think

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

NSI

A

About norms, what is normal or typical behaviour
Social approval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Conformity types and explainations evuals

A

Research for ISI - Lucas et al. greater conformity in more difficult math questions, most true for students who rated their math skill as poor. People conform in situations where they don’t know the answer
Individual differences in NSI - does not affect everyone, people less concerned with being liked. nAffiliators people who have a greater need for affiliation. Desire to be liked
ISI and NSI work together - behaivor is due to either NSI or ISI, Asch dissenter reduces NSI or reduces ISI. Not always possible to tell, doubt whether they operate independently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Asch research

A

Standard line and three comparison line
123 American male undergrads
1 participant 6 confederates
18 trials and 12 critical trials

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch findings

A

36 % of times gave the wrong answer
25% did not conform
Confirmed to avoid rejection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Asch variations

A

Group size - more than 3 confederates, no change 31% wrong answer, small majority not sufficient
Unanimity - dissenter that disagreed w others, reduced 25%, allowed to behave more independently
Task difficultly - increased, ISI when harder, assume other people, are right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch evuals

A

Temporal validity - 1950s since replicated and did not find the same result, Perrin and Spencer, 1 out of 392. People possibly less conformist today. Not consistent across time
Artificial task and stimulus - demand characteristics, can’t apply to real life, esp true when consequences of conformity are more important
Limited applications - only men, other studies suggest women might be more conformist. US individualistic culture. Only apply to American men

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Zimbardos research

A

Mock prison in basement of Stanford University
Students who were emotionally stable
Randomly assigned roles
Social roles were strict, prisoners were heavily regulated
Guards had uniforms and prisoners never called by their name - deindividuaisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Zimbardo findings

A

Guards behaivor threatened priosners mental and physical state
Study stopped after 6 days, intended 14
Prisoners rebelled over harsh treatment after 2 days
Guards harassed, random headcount’s in the middle of the night
After rebellion, prisoners became subdued and anxious
90% of conversion was in role
Guards identified more with their role, becoming more aggressive and brutal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Zimbardo conclusions

A

Power of situation to influence behaivor
All conformed to their roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Zimbardo evuals

A

Control over aspects - selection of participants, ruled out individual personality by randomly assigning roles, internal validity
Lack of realism - based on stereotypes, one guard claimed he based his character off the film Cool Hand Luke, explains why they rioted
HOWEVER, Zimbardo claims participants thought it was real - conversations, ‘Prisoner 416’ said it was a real prion just run by psychologicists not the government. Situation was real to participants, high internal validity
Ethical issues - participant wanted to leave spoke to Zimbardo as the superintendent, difficult him to leave. Psychological harm caused to participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Milligrams research

A

Studied obedience
20-50 years old
Tricked into thinking the role assignments were fair - participant always teacher
Experimenter
Leaner strapped into electric chair
Increasing shocks every time question answered wrong
15V - 450V lethal
Standard prods from the experimenter - please continue, experiment requires you to continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Milligrams findings

A

No participants stopped below 300V
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% went to 450V
Participants showed signs of extreme tension, sweat, tremble,
Three had seizures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Milligrams evuals

A

Low internal validity - didn’t really belief the set up, tapes : participants doubting shocks.
Good external validity - relationship between participant and authority figure, reflects real life. Howling studied nurses - levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were high. Generalisable to real life
Alternate Explaination - social identity theory, participants identified with the experimenter. First three prods dorm demand obedience, 4th does. All participants stopped after hearing the 4th(you have no other choice). Identify with science or the victim
Ethical issues - participants were deceived by the allocation of roles. And led to believe the electric shocks were real. 3 seizures. Harmful to reputation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Obedience situational variables

A

Proximity
Location
Uniform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Proximity

A

Teacher and learner in the same room
Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
Touch proximity - dropped to 30%
Remote instruction - dropped to 20%

22
Q

Location

A

Run down building rather than university
Fellowship to 47%

23
Q

Uniform

A

Experimenter called away and replaced by a ‘member of public’
In everyday clothes
Dropped to 20%

24
Q

Situational variables evuals

A

Research to support - field exp in NYC Bickman three confeds dress in diff uniforms. Jacket and tie, milkman, security. Twice more likely to obey when it was the security
Lack of internal validity - many participants figured out it was fake, more likely w the extra manipulation. Milligram recognised they might have worked it out w the replaced by public. Unclear results
Cross cultural replication - Miranda et al. 90% obedience rate in Spanish students. Don’t just apply to American males. However most only replicated in western cultures, can’t apply globally
Control of variables - manipulated one variable at a time, all other bpvariabkes and procedure kept the same

25
Social-Psychological factors affecting obedience
Agentic state Legitimacy of authority
26
Agentic state
Obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility They believe they are acting for someone else An agent feels high anxiety when they realise they are doing something wrong but feel powerless to disobey From the Nazis - Eichmanns defence was he was obeying orderd
27
Autonomous state
Opposite of agentic Free to behave according to their own principles Feels sense of responsibility for their own actions
28
Agentic shift
Autonomy to agency Occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority
29
Binding factors
Why the individual stays in the agentic state Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damage opeffect of their behaivor Reducer moral strain E.g. shifting blame to victim, denying damage they doing to the victim
30
Legitimacy of authority
Agreed by society Allowed to exercise social power over others Consequences some people granted power to punish Willing to give up some independence and hand over control Destructive authority Shown in milligrams exp
31
Social-Psychological Obediance Evuals
Research support - Blass and Schmitt showed a film of milligrams exp to participants and asked who was responsible. Students blamed the experimenter, due to legitimate authority. Limited explaination - agentic shift doesn’t explain why some participants don’t obey, doesn’t explain Hifling et al. the nurses should have had a similar anxiety but they didn’t. Agentic can only account for some obediance Cultural differences - replicated in Australia Kilham and Mann obedience on,y 16%, Hermany Mantell 85%. Some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate Real life crimes - can explain obediance in real life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton argue the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the US army’s power
32
Dispositional Explainations Obediance
Authoritarian Personality
33
The AP - Adorno
Investigated white Americans unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. F - scale used to ensure AP
34
Adorno findings
People w AP identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak Conscious of their own and others status s Show excessive respect and servility for people of higher status Cognitive style where categories of people are fixed and distinct stereotypes Strong positive correlation between AP and predujice
35
Authoritarian characteristics
Tend to be especially obedient to authority Respect and submissiveness Show contempt for people they perceive as being inferior Inflexible with their views
36
Original of AP
Forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting Strict discipline, expectations of loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism Conditional love from parents Creates resentment and hostility in the child Fears displaced onto others who perceived as weak - scapegoating
37
AP evuals
Research support - milligram measured Obediance and AP, found correlation between the two. Not enough evidence for causation Limited explaination - individual personality can’t explain obedient behaviour for the majority, e.g. pre war Germany all showed obedient rascist behaviour but they all would have had different personalities - can’t all have AP. Methological problems - based in flawed F-scale, all the items are worded in the same direction. High score by ticking all the boxes in the same column. Not necessarily AP but acquiescence biased, tendency to agree w everything. Low internal validity
38
Minority influence - social support
Conformity Reduced if other people are not conforming as well Aschs dissenter allowed the person to think independently Effect of dissenter not long lasting Obediance Another person does not obey Milligrams variations dropped from 65% to 10% when joined by a disobedient confed
39
Minority influence - Locus of Control
Internal control, rather than external Internals believe things that halogen to them are as a result of their behaivor Externals believe things that happen to them are out of their control Continuum - scale of LoC, low internal/external Internal are more likely to resist pressure to conform, takes responsibility for their actions Internals tend to be more self confident, more achievement orientated and less need for social approval
40
Resistance to SI evuals
Research support - Allen and Levine found conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch type exp. Occurred when the dissenter stated he had poor vision, no place to judge the line, supports that resistance allows the person to think freely Research support - Gamson et al. higher levels of resistance than millgram. Participants were in groups. 88% resisted - peer support is linked to resistance Research support - link between LoC and Obediance. Holland repeated milligrams experiment and measured participants LoC. 37% of internals did not continue to highest shock. 23% of externals did not. Increases validity Contradictory research - Twenge et al. analysed data from American LoC studies over 40 year time period. Showed that people have become more resistant to Obediance and more external. If resistance was linked to internal, people should have become more internal
41
Minority influence
One person or a small group of people influence the beliefs/behaviours of others Consistency Commitment Flexibility Most likely to lead to internalisation
42
Consistency
Consistency in minority views increase the interest of other people, Synchronic consistency - everyone saying the same thing Diachronic consistency - everyone saying the same thing for some time Ames people rethink their own views
43
Commitment
Engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views These activities are at some risk to the minority because it demonstrates commitment to the cause The majority pays more attention to- augmentation principle
44
Flexibility
Being extremely consistent can be seen as rigid, dogmatic and inflexible. Off putting to the majority unlikely to lead to conversions of beliefs Prepared to adapt their view and accept reasonable and valid counter argument Strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
45
MI Process of Change - Snowball Effect
Over time , increasing numbers of people,e switch their views to the minority. They have become converted. The more this happens the more the rate of conversion Called Snow balled effect Gradually the minority view has become the majority and change has occurred
46
MI evuals
Artificial tasks - identifying the colour of a slide are as artificial as Aschs experiment, research is far removed from how they attempt to change behaivor, lacks external validity
47
Social change
1 Drawing attention 2 Consistency 3 Deeper processing 4 Augmentative principle 5 Snowball effect 6 Social cryptomnesia
48
Social cryptomnesia
People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened
49
Social change evuals
Minority influence is only indirectly effective - social changes happen slowly, indirect and delayed. Majority is only influenced by matters related to the issue. Effects may not be seen for some time. Being perceived as deviant - the potential of minorities is often limited, majority may not want to align themselves with them. Would have little impact because the focus would be on them and not their message
50
Mosocovici
Group of six asked to view 36 blue coloured slides of varing intensity, and state if blue or green. 2 confeds who consistently said the slides were green for 2/3 if the slides. 32% gave the wrong slide on at least one trial. A second group was exposed to an inconsistent minority, fell to 1.25% No confeds 0.25%