Social influence

Question 1

Types of conformity

Answer 1

1. Internalisation-person accepts group norms+agrees privately and publicly
2. Identification-person conforms to group as they identify with it and wants to be a part
3. Compliance-person goes along with others but doesn’t privately change, stops when group pressure stops.

Question 2

Informational social influence

Answer 2

-about who has the better info
-conform as the person doesn’t know what to do and others are more likely to be right
-new/ambiguous situations

Question 3

Normative social influence

Answer 3

-about what is normal of typical behaviour
-person don’t want to be foolish and want to gain social approval
-strangers, person concerned about rejection

Question 4

Evaluations for ISI and NSI

Answer 4

Strengths:
-Lucas et al-more conformity when maths q was difficult (ISI)
-Asch-conformed even when the answer was clearly wrong, as they felt conscious

Weaknesses:
-nAffiliators are more likely to show NSI but others may not
-Both could affect conformity and can’t tell which one
-ISI affects less when the person is experienced

Question 5

Asch’s study

Answer 5

-23 Americans asked to judge line lengths
-group with 6-8 confederates, said their answer last
-Conformed 36.8% of the time
-75% conformed at least once
-NSI

Question 6

Asch’s variations

Answer 6

1. Group size-decreased to 31.8%
2. Unanimity-when 2 disagreed, conformity decreased by 25%

Question 7

Asch-evaluation

Answer 7

Strengths:
-lab-high levels of control

Weaknesses:
-Lacks temporal validity, Perrin and Spencer found that only 1 out of 396 engineering students conformed
-Artificial task and situation-lacks ecological validity and mundane realism
-Can’t be applied to different cultures
-Findings only apply to situation w strangers
-Deception

Question 8

Sherif’s study

Answer 8

-Lab+repeated measures
-Spot of light appear to move but wasn’t (auto kinetic effect), participants had to estimate speed alone, then with other people, then asked individually
-alone-personal norms and group-group norms
-ISI

Question 9

Sheriff-evaluation

Answer 9

Strengths:
-Lab study with high control

Weaknesses:
-Limited sample (all male)
-lack ecological validity

Question 10

Zimbardo’s study

Answer 10

-24 psychology students in prison, randomly assigned role of guard/prisoner
-social roles divided (regulated routine, called by numbers, uniform)
-guards were brutal and prisoners rebelled
-conformed to social roles in prison

Question 11

Zimbardo-evaluation

Answer 11

Strengths:
-High internal validity due to control, emotionally stable people were chosen and randomisation

Weaknesses:
-lack of realism-role play rather than conforming
-Exaggerated as only 1/3 guards were brutal and others were fair and tried to help prisoners
-Later studies (Reicher and Haslam) showed different results
-Unethical
-Researcher bias as Zimbardo also took part

Question 12

Milgram’s study

Answer 12

-40 men told to play the ‘teacher’, had to give electric shocks to the learner
-researcher told them to continue
-12% stopped at 300V
65% continued to 450V
-signs of distress such as swear, tremble
-debriefed

Question 13

Milgram-evaluation

Answer 13

Strengths:
-High external validity due to lab reflecting wider authority situations
-Replication on reality TV showed similar results (80% continued to 460V)

Weaknesses:
-Low internal validity (Perry) but Sheridan and King’s shocks to puppy study gave similar results
-Social identity theory (identified as the ‘teacher’)
-Unethical

Question 14

Milgram’s variations

Answer 14

1. Proximity to victim, 65% to 40% 30%
2. Proximity to authority, 65% to 20% on a phone call
3. Location, 47% in a run down building
4. Uniform, 20% authority taken away and different member with normal clothes

Question 15

Milgram’s variations-evaluation

Answer 15

Strengths:
-Research support (Bickman’s had jacket/milkman’s outfit/security in public and asked people to pick up litter-twice more obedience with security guard)
-Similar results in cross cultural studies (90% with Spanish students)
-High control

Weaknesses:
-Low internal validity
-Obedience alibi

Question 16

Obedience-social factors

Answer 16

Agentic state (autonomous to agents state) due to a perceived authority figure due to social hierarchy
-Binding factors:aspects of situations that allow person to ignore the effect of their action (milligram-people wanted to quit but couldn’t)
-legistimacy of authority-some given power to punish others, learnt due to social norms
-destructive

Question 17

Obedience social factors evaluation

Answer 17

Strengths:
-Blass and Schmitt-student blamed experimenter
-Show cultural differences (Germany-85%)
-Show obedience in real life war crimes)

Weaknesses
-Doesn’t explain all findings
-Obedience alibi

Question 18

Obedience dispositional factors

Answer 18

Authoritarian personality-Observed white Americans’ racist attitudes and F scale
-rigid cognitive style, stereotypical
-extreme respect for authority
-strong leader needed
-scapegoating due to strict parenting (psychodynamic explanation)

Question 19

Obedience dispositional factors evaluation

Answer 19

Strengths:
-Interview showed correlation between F scale and obedience

Weaknesses
-F scale is biased
-Can’t explain all findings (social identity theory)
-Political bias (extreme form go right wings)
-Correlation doesn’t mean causation (third factor involved)

Question 20

Resistance to social influence

Answer 20

-Social support can decrease influence
-LOC-externals conform more
-continuum

Question 21

Resistance to social influence evaluation

Answer 21

Strengths:
-Asch showed that unanimity decreases conformity
-Gamson’s study did Milgrams study in groups and showed less obedience
-Holland’s milligram study-37% internals didn’t continue, 23% externals didn’t

Weaknesses
-Twenge’s study-40 year study, people become more restart AND external
-LOC is exaggerated, Rotter stated that it only influences new situations

Question 22

Minority influence

Answer 22

-when minority influences others (internalisation)
-Synchronic consistency-all saying the same thing
-diachronic consistency-say the same thing for a long time
-consistency make others reconsider the views
-commitment-augmentation principle (shows that the thought is important)
-Flexibility-should be reasonable and acceptive
-snowball effect-minority becomes majority
-social crypto amnesia-changes in view but don’t know where it started

Question 23

Minority influence evaluation

Answer 23

Strengths:
-Moscovici’s research support for consistency
-Martin et all-minority message is more deeply processed
-Moscovici’s study supports internalisation as participants wrote their thoughts

Weaknesses:
-Artificial material used
-Limited real world application (in real life minority and majority are vague)

Question 24

Social change

Answer 24

1. Draw attention
2. Consistency
3. Deeper processing
4. Augmentation principle (deep commitment that life is risky)
5. Snowball effect
6. Social cryptoamnesia

-Asch’s study
-Zimbardo’s social change through gradual commitment (once a small section id obeyed, resistance is more difficult)

Question 25

Social change evaluation

Answer 25

Strengths:
-Nolan et al-gave messages to people about ‘most people try to reduce energy levels’ and ‘you should reduce energy’-first group had more decrease (normative)

Weaknesses:
-Only indirectly effective
-Mackie’s study showed that majority influence causes deeper processing not minority
-People resist social change because they don’t want to be associated with stereotypical views
-Social change studies have problems

Question 26

Moscovici’s study

Answer 26

192 participants in group of 6 had to judge the colour of 36 all blue slides
-2 confederates called all slides green/24 green and 12 blue
-Consistent-8% called green, inconsistent-1% called it green