Social Influence. Flashcards
Agentic State.
An explanation of obedience, in which individuals carry out orders as an ‘agent’ for a figure of authority. The don’t take responsibility for their actions.
Compliance.
A change in an individual’s behaviour to comply with that of a group which only exists in the presence of that group. Internal beliefs remain unchanged.
Internalisation.
A complete change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs to conform with a group. These changes exist outside the presence of the group.
Identification.
A change in an individual’s behaviour and internal beliefs but only in the presence of the group.
Informational social influence.
When an individual conforms as they believe that someone holds more knowledge than they do so is more likely to be right.
Normative social influence.
When an individual conforms due to the belief that they will be ostracised or perceived negatively if they do not.
Legitimacy of authority.
An explanation of obedience in when an individual obeys someone in a perceived higher position of authority or the social hierarchy.
Locus of control.
An explanation of either resistance or conformity to social influence. The idea of an individual to explain events in their life, either by attributing them to an external or internal locus of control.
Conformity.
Obeying the standard of normality.
Independence.
doing your own thing/ your own will.
Disobedience.
Not obeying instructions.
Obedience:
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.
What year was Asch’s study?
1951
What type of experiment was Asch’s study?
Laboratory experiment with group design.
Asch’s method:
In groups of 8, p/pants had to verbally answer which line did not match the other three shown on a card (obvious) but 7 of the p/pants were confederates all giving the same wrong answer. The real p/pant would answer last or second last to see if they conform to the previous incorrect answers. On 12 trials (critical trials) the confederates all gave the same wrong answer. There was a control group where the answers were given in isolation.
Asch’s p/pants:
123 American male undergraduates.
Asch’s results:
The p/pant on average gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time. In the trials p/pants conformed 37% of the time, 25% never conformed and 75% conformed at least once.
Strengths of Asch’s study.
High internal validity.
Lab experiment.
Supports normative social influence.
Weaknesses of Asch’s study.
Lacks ecological validity.
Lacks population validity due to sampling issues.
Ethical issues- deception.
Lacked validity- 1951.
Factors effecting conformity:
Group size: 2 confederates- 14%, 3 confederates 32%.
Unanimity: One confederate agrees with the p/pant that the conformity fell to 5.5%.
Task difficulty: When Asch increased task difficulty conformity increased.
Situational explanation.
The situation people are in that causes people to act as they did- depending on who they are around.
Deutsh and Gerard 1955.
2 main ways to influence people.
Informational social influence.
Normative influence.
Based on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (ISI)
Name and year of Zimbardo’s study.
1973- Standford prison study.
What type of study was Zimbardo’s?
Controlled observation.
Zimbardo’s method.
American students were randomly assigned roles or either prisoner or guard. They were taken, blindfolded, strip searched, given a number and placed into a ‘prison’ that was in the Stanford psychology ward. They were given uniforms and only referred to as their designated numbers. Guards were given props, no one was allowed to leave. Guards worked in 8-hour shifts, while the others were on call. No physical violence was permitted, they were being observed.
Zimbardo’s results.
Both the guards and prisoners fell into their roles almost immediately. Guards began to harass and torment the prisoners- they later enjoyed doing so. Prisoners would talk about prison life (forgetting the outside world) and snitch on each other to the guards. They believed it was real and therefore did not play up to demand characteristics.
Strengths of Zimbardo’s study.
Real-life applications.
Fully debriefed.
Weaknesses of Zimbardo’s study.
Lacks ecological validity- suffered demand characteristics.
Lacks population validity- American male students.
Ethical issues- consent due to deception. Psychological harm- not protected from stress, anxiety, emotional distress and embarassment.
Social-Psychological factors meaning.
Factors from the environment that affect the way we act.
Autonomous state.
When you act independently with your own free-will and take on the responsibility for your own actions.
When was Milgram’s study?
1963
Aim of Milgram’s study:
An answer to the question of why the German population had followed the orders of Hitler.
Milgram’s method:
40 male volunteer p/pants ages 20-50.
‘Learner’, ‘Teacher’ and ‘Experimenter’.
P/pants were assessed on how many electric shocks they were willing to give to the ‘learner’, ranging from 300-450V where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’. The experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders/prods when
the participant refused to administer a shock, which increased in
terms of demandingness for every time the participant refused to
administer a shock.
Milgram’s results.
All p/pants went up to 300V, and 65% went to 450V. Only 12.5% of p/pants stopped at 300V so most people were willing to give the lethal shock.
Strengths of Milgram’s study.
Debriefing.
Real-life applications- nazis.
High internal validity
Highly replicable.
External validity has been established by supporting studies.
Weaknesses of Milgram’s study.
Ethical issues- informed consent
Socially sensitive topic- killing can be excused.
Lack of internal validity- trust rather than obedience.
Lack of ecological validity- not real-life situation.
Binding factors- conformity.
Sequential nature of the action- the idea that disobedience causes them to admit that everything they had done to that point was wrong.
Situational obligation- they have made a commitment and so they feel they must see it through to the end.
Anxiety- the idea that when you think about disobedience, you start to feel anxious, naturally, you get shy from that feeling.
Variations in Milgram’s study.
Proximity
Touch proximity- The teacher made the learner touch the electroshock plate.
Remote instruction- experimenter gave instructions via telephone.
Location- run-down building rather than the university- obedience fell to 47.5%.
Uniform- originally had the experimenter wearing lab clothes but in one variation the experimenter left and was replaced by a guy wearing ‘ordinary clothes’- obedience fell to 20% (the lowest).
What was Mandel’s 1998 study?
Actions of the reserve police battalion, Jozefow, Poland.
Mandel 1998 results:
Proximity to victim- even when close to the people they had to kill they still carried out the execution.
Proximity to the authority figure- the senior officers gave the orders and then went to a dinner party, but the police officers still followed the orders.
Presence of Allies- some declined to do it and the rest knew this yet carried on.
Increasing teacher discretion- as they were not being supervised they had the chance to let some people escape but did not.
Milgram’s varients: base-line study.
65%
Milgram’s varients: proximity.
40%
Milgram’s varients: touch proximity.
30%
Milgram’s varients: location.
47.5%
Milgram’s varients: remote instruction.
20.5%
Milgram’s varients: uniform.
20%
What did Mandel come up with?
Authoritarian personality.
What did Mandel use to criticise Milgram?
Polish reserve police battalion 101.
Internalisation:
A deep type of conformity where we take on majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour; even when the group is absent.
Identification:
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way with the group because we value it and want to be part of it but we don’t necessarily agree with everything the majority believes.
Compliance:
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
Informational social influence (ISI)
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.
Normative social influence (NSI)
An explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well. This may lead to internalisation.
ISI research support:
Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or more difficult. There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier. This was tre for most students who rated their ability at math as poor.
NSI, individual difference:
Some research shows NSI does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. For example, people who are less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those who care about being liked. McGhee and Teevan (1976) found that students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform.
ISI and NSI evaluation-
-They work together:
The original idea is that it is one or the other. The truth is that, both processes are involved. Conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting p/pant (Asch), this dissenter may reduce the power of NSI or may reduce the power of ISI. It isn’t alway possible to be sure whether NSI or ISI is at work.
Group size:
Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, thus increasing the size of the majority. Conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point, levelling off when the majority was greater than three.
Unanmity:
The extent to which all the members of a group agree. In Asch’s studies, the majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison line.
Task difficulty:
Asch’s line-judging task is more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. Conformity increases because naive p/pants assume that the majority is more likely right.
Asch’s results- Group size:
With 3 confederates conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%, but adding more confederates made little difference.
Asch’s results- Unanimity:
Introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others sometimes giving the wrong answer, sometimes right. Led to reduced conformity, on average 25%.
Asch’s results- Task difficulty:
Conformity increased under these conditions, this suggests ISI plays a greater role when the task is harder.
Asch evaluations:
Perrin and Spencer (1980)
Repeated Asch’s study with engineering students in the UK. Only one student conformed in 396 trials. It is possible that the 1950s (Asch) were an especially conformist time in US , therefore it lacks temporal validity.
Asch evaluations:
Artificial situation and task:
P/pants knew they were in a research study (demand characteristics). Riske (2014) ‘Asch’s groups were not very group’- not groups that resemble daily life. Lack generalisability.
Asch evaluations:
Limited application:
Only men.
US-individualist culture
May only apply to American undergrad men.
Social roles:
The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
Zimbardo evaluation:
Control-
A strength is that Zimbardo had some control over the variables. This is how they tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings as they hand-picked p/pants.
High internal validity.
Zimbardo evaluation:
Lack of realism, Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975)-
Argued the p/pant were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Zimbardo pointed to evidence that the situation was very real to the p/pants. Quantitative data gathered showed 90% of the prisoners’ conversations were about prison life.
Zimbardo evaluation:
Role of dispositional influences, Fromm (1973)-
Accused Z of exaggerating the power of the situation and minimising the role of personality factors. This suggests that Zimbardo’s conclusion may be over-stated.
Milgram evaluation:
Low internal validity-
Orne and Holland (1968) argued that p/pants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up. Gina Perry’s (2013) research confirmed this, she listened the the tapes and heard many express doubt about the shocks. Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study with real shocks on a puppy. 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they believed to be a fatal shock.
Milgram evaluation:
Good external validity-
Milgram argued that the lab reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Hofing et al (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found 21/22 obeyed to unjustified demands from a doctor.
Milgram evaluation:
Supporting replication-
The Game of Death is a documentary about reality TV, resented on French TV in 2010. Replicates M’s study. 80% of p/pants delivered the maximum shock to an ‘unconscious man’.
Situational variables:
In his research Milgram identified several factors that he believed influenced the level of obedience shown by p/pants. They are all related to the external circumstances rather than to the personalities of the people involved.
Proximity:
Physical closeness of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to.
Location:
The place where the order is issues.
Uniforms:
People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority.
Milgram’s variations evaluation:
Research support:
Other studies demonstrated the influence of situational variables in obedience. Field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates in different outfits- jacket/tie, milkman and security guard. they stood in the street asking people to do things such as pick up litter or giving them a coin for parking. They were twice as likely to obey to security guard than the jacket and tie.
Milgram’s variations evaluation:
Lack of internal validity:
Orne and Holland’s criticism of Milgram’s original study was that many p/pants knew the procedure was fake. It is more likely that in this study p/pants realised this because of the extra manipulation.
Milgram’s variations evaluation:
Cross-cultural replications-
Strength. The findings of cross-cultural research have been generally supportive of milgram. Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of 90% + amongst Spanish students. However, Smith and Bond (1998) point out most replications have been in western societies.
Legitimacy of authority:
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive that have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
Autonomous state:
Opposite of agentic state. A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels responsibility for their own actions. Shoft from autonomy to agency is agentic shift.
Binding factors:
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling.
Destructive authority:
Powerful leaders can use their authority for destructive purposes.
Agentic state evaluation:
Research support, Blass and Schmitt (2001):
Showed a film of milgram’s study to students and asked them who was responsible for the harm to the learner. They blamed the experimenter rather than the p/pant. They also indicated responsibility was due to legitimate authority and expert authority (scientist).
Agentic state evaluation:
A limited explanation-
The agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings. For example it does not explain why some p/pants did not obey. Shows agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
Legitimacy of authority evaluation:
Cultural differences-
Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated m’s study in Australia and found only 16% of p/pants went all the way to the top of voltage scale. Mantell (1971) found for German p/pants it was 85%. In some cultures authorty is more likely to be accepted ad legitimate and entitled to demand obedience.
Dispositional explanation:
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual’s personality. Often contrasted with situational explanations.
Authoritarian personality:
A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. They are also submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
Adorno et al (1950) procedure:
Investigated the causes of obedient personalities on a study of more than 2000 middle class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. Developed several scales including the f-scale (fascist).
Adorno et al (1950) findings:
People with authoritarian leanings (high on f-scale, etc) identified with strong people and were generally contemptuous of the weak. Very conscious of their own and others’ status showing excessive respect to those of higher status. Also found that authoritarian people had a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups. Strong positive correlation between authoritarian and prejudice.
Authoritarian characteristics:
Respect and submissiveness to authority. Show contempt for people they perceive as having inferior social status and conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender.
Origin of the authoritarian personality:
Formed in childhood, as a result of harsh parenting. Adorno argues that these experiences create resentment and hostility in the child but can’t release that due to fear. This fear is displaced onto others who are perceived to be weaker.
PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH
Adorno’s authoritarian personality evaluations:
Milgram and Elms (1966), research support-
Conducted interviews with small sample of fully obedient p/pants, who score highly on f-scale, believing there may be a link between authoritarian personality and obedience. The link is merely a correlation that authoritarian personality causes obedience on the basis of this result.
Adorno’s authoritarian personality evaluations:
Limited explanation-
Hard to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of the country’s population. In nazi Germany it seems unlikely they all had authoritarian personalities.
Adorno’s authoritarian personality evaluations:
Political bias, Christie and Jahoda (1954)
Argued that this is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality. They point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism. Extremism on either political side emphasises the importance of complete obedience to legitimate political authority. Limitation.
Resistance to social influence:
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situation and dispositional factors.
Social support:
Presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same.
Locus of control (LOC):
Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them. Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces.
Social support to resist conformity:
The pressure to conform is reduced.
Rotter 1966, Locus of control:
There is a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external at the other with low of both lying in between.
LOC- resistance to social influence:
People with an internal LOC are more likely to be able to resist pressures to conform or obey. People with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence and less need for social approval.
Social support evaluations;
Research support, Allen and Levine (1971)
Found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with vision. Supports the view of social support.
Social support evaluations;
Research support, Gamson et al (1982)
Found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram. This was probably because the p/pants were in groups. 88% of p/pants rebelled.
Locus of control evaluation:
Research support, Holland (1967)
Repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether p/pants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level whereas 23% if externals did not continue .
Locus of control evaluation:
Contradictory research-
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40-year period. Data showed that over time people have become more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance were linked to an internal LOC, internal LOCs should be higher.
Minority influence:
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Lead to internalisation or conversion in which private and public attitudes are changed.
Consistency:
Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs over time and between all individuals in the minority.
Commitment:
Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position. This is effective because it shows the minority is not always acting out of self interest.
Flexibility:
Relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unreasonable. Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.
Minority influence: Process of change-
Over time, increasing number of people switch from the majority position to the minority. They have been converted. The more that this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. This is called the snowball effect.
Minority influence evaluation:
Research support for consistency-
Moscovici et al’s study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent one. Wood et al (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential.
Moscovci et al (1969)’s study and findings:
Demonstrated minority influence in a study where a group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether they were blue or green. In each group there were 2 confederates who said green 2/3rds of the time. The p/pants gave the same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials. 32% gave the same answer as the minority at least once.
Minority influence evaluation:
Research support for depth of thought-
Martin et al (2003) gave p/pants a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured their support. One group then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard this from a majority group. They were then exposed to a conflicting view and measured attitudes again. Martin et al found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they listened to the minority group rather than if they shared with the majority group.
Social change:
This occurs when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.
Minority influence evaluation:
Artificial tasks-
A limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved are fake. Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life. Lacking in external validity.
6 factors of social change:
Drawing attention- with proof
Consistency
Deeper processing
Augmentation principle- if a person or movement has carried out an action despite great obstacles their beliefs are perceived as ‘stronger than those obstacles’ and therefore more valid.
Snowball effect
Social cryptomnesia- people have a memory of something changing but not how it happened.
Social change evaluations:
Research support for normative influences-
Nolan et al (2008) studied if social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. Hung messages on front doors in California. Key message was most residents were trying to reduce energy usage. As a control some residents had a different message without reference to other people but asking the to reduce power usage. Found signif decreases in energy usage in the first group.
Social change evaluations:
Minority influence is only indirectly effective-
Social changes happen slowly. Nemeth (1986) argues that the effects of minority influence are likely to be mostly indirect and delayed. Limitation.
Social change evaluations:
Deeper processing-
Mackie (1987) disagrees with minority influence causing deeper thinking and presents evidence that it is majority influence that creates deeper processing if you do not share their views. Central element of the process of minority influence has been challenged to be incorrect.
