Social influence

Question 1

Three types of conformity

Answer 1

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

Question 2

Compliance

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Identification

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Internalisation

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Explanations for conformity

Answer 5

Informational social influence
Normative social influence

Question 6

ISI

Answer 6

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

Question 7

NSI

Answer 7

About norms, what is normal or typical behaviour
Social approval

Question 8

Conformity types and explainations evuals

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Asch research

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Asch findings

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Asch variations

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Asch evuals

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Zimbardos research

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Zimbardo findings

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Zimbardo conclusions

Answer 15

Power of situation to influence behaivor
All conformed to their roles

Question 16

Zimbardo evuals

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Milligrams research

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Milligrams findings

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Milligrams evuals

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Obedience situational variables

Answer 20

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 21

Proximity

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Location

Answer 22

Run down building rather than university
Fellowship to 47%

Question 23

Uniform

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Situational variables evuals

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Social-Psychological factors affecting obedience

Answer 25

Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority

Question 26

Agentic state

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Autonomous state

Answer 27

Opposite of agentic
Free to behave according to their own principles
Feels sense of responsibility for their own actions

Question 28

Agentic shift

Answer 28

Autonomy to agency
Occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority

Question 29

Binding factors

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Social-Psychological Obediance Evuals

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Dispositional Explainations Obediance

Answer 32

Authoritarian Personality

Question 33

The AP - Adorno

Answer 33

Investigated white Americans unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
F - scale used to ensure AP

Question 34

Adorno findings

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Authoritarian characteristics

Answer 35

Tend to be especially obedient to authority
Respect and submissiveness
Show contempt for people they perceive as being inferior
Inflexible with their views

Question 36

Original of AP

Answer 36

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

Question 37

AP evuals

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Minority influence - social support

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Minority influence - Locus of Control

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Resistance to SI evuals

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Minority influence

Answer 41

One person or a small group of people influence the beliefs/behaviours of others
Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility
Most likely to lead to internalisation

Question 42

Consistency

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Commitment

Answer 43

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

Question 44

Flexibility

Answer 44

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

Question 45

MI Process of Change - Snowball Effect

Answer 45

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

Question 46

MI evuals

Answer 46

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

Question 47

Social change

Answer 47

1 Drawing attention
2 Consistency
3 Deeper processing
4 Augmentative principle
5 Snowball effect
6 Social cryptomnesia

Question 48

Social cryptomnesia

Answer 48

People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened

Question 49

Social change evuals

Answer 49

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

Question 50

Mosocovici

Answer 50

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%