Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Y12 Psychology > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

A01:Define conformity.

A

Conformity is a change in behaviour as a result of real or imagined pressure from other people or groups.

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

A01: What is meant by “types of conformity”?

A

Kelman (1958) identified three types (levels) of conformity: 1) Compliance, the shallowest level 2) Identification, the Intermediate level and 3)
Internalisation, the deepest level.

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

A01: Define the identification level of conformity.

A

At this intermediate level of conformity, We conform to the group’s behaviour or ideas in order to be a part of the group. We conform because we value group membership, so we will conform even if we don’t privately agree with our actions.

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

A01: Name and describe the deepest level of conformity.

A

Internalisation. We conform because our personal opinions have been genuinely changed to match the group. This is a permanent change in beliefs.

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

A01: Name and describe the shallowest level of conformity

A

Compliance. This is when we conform because we don’t want to be reiected by the group. We agree with the group publicly but keep our personal opinions. This results in a temporary change in behaviour

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

A01: Describe Informational Social
Influence (ISI)

A

An explanation of conformity, ISI is when the correct answer is unclear, and we look for guidance because we want to be correct. It is linked to Internalisation (Deep conformity as it results in a permanent change in beliefs.

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

A01: Describe Normative Social Influence (NSI)

A

An explanation of conformity, NSI
Explains conformity in cases where the individual conforms to appear
“normal” because they want approval fear rejection from the group. Often results in compliance (Shallow) as the behaviour is temporary.

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

A01: Give a very brief description of Asch’s (1951) original research.

A

(7-9) fake participants (confederates)
gave the wrong answer to a question on line length (the correct answer was obvious/unambiguous). Asch demonstrated NSI by showing the real participants would also give the incorrect line (32% trials) due to group pressure.

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

A01: In Asch’s original study, 1) how many critical trials were there? 2) what % of participants never conformed once?
3) What % of participants conformed every time?

A

1) 12. 2) 25% - Suggests some people are highly resistant to social pressure.
3) Only 5% - Suggests most people will attempt to resist but eventually give in to social pressure.

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

A01: Name and briefly describe the three variations of Asch’s original study.

A

Group Size (varied group size from
1-15), Unanimity (added a dissenter confederate), and Task Difficulty (made the line lengths closer)

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

A01: What happened in Asch’s task difficulty variation? Explain why.

A

Conformity increased; this is due to less certainty about which line matches the example. Therefore participants are conforming due to informational social Influence (ISI) & NSI (Normative Social Influence).

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

A01: What % of participants conformed with 1, 2 and 3 confederates (and beyond)?

A

1) 1 confederate - 3%.
2) 2 confederates -13 %.
3) 3 confederates - 33%. Percentage did not rise much higher than 33%, even with 15 confederates).

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

A01: What happened when the unanimity of the group was broken in Asch’s study, and why?

A

Conformity reduced to 5.5% of critical trials. This is due to the participant having social support in resisting group pressure.

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

A03: Describe Perring and Spencer’s
(1980) replication.

A

Replication of Asch with engineering students; finding only one student conformed out of 396. Suggests Asch lacks temporal validity or that engineering students are unusual.

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

A03: What type of questions did Rosander ask participants on Facebook, and what was found?

A

Logic and general knowledge.
Participants would conform to incorrect responses. 52% conformed at least once. Conformity was higher on difficult questions demonstrating the role of ISI.

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

A01: What did Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) set out to test?

A

If the high level of aggression observed in American prisons is due to conformity to social roles.

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

A03: Briefly describe the method of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison
Experiment (SPE.

A

Volunteers assessed as mentally stable were randomly assigned as prisoners and guards. Prisoners were given realistic arrest at home and fingerprinted, stripped, deloused and given prison uniforms with a number.
Guards were given complete control along with uniforms, mirrored shades, clubs and handcuffs.

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

A01: Briefly describe the findings of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison
Experiment SPE.

A

Prisoners and guards conformed to social roles quickly; however, after two days, the prisoners revolted against their poor treatment.

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

A01: Briefly describe the conclusions of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison
Experiment (SPE).

A

Situational environments (such as prisons) can radically alter the behaviour of previously stable individuals. This is due to individuals changing to conform to socially defined roles.

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

A01: How long was Stanford Prison
Experiment (SPE) planned to take, when was it cancelled, and why?

A

Planned to last two weeks, cancelled in 6 days due to concerns about participants’ mental health.

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

A03: Outline Reicher and Haslam’s (2011) Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE replication.

A

Replicated for TV (BBC), findings did not match with Zimbardo’s study.
Prisoners were very disobedient, and guards resisted showing authority.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

A03: Why do studies by Zimbardo, Asch, and Milgram suffer from gender bias?

A

All three only used males in their study. Assuming the same results would be found with women is Beta bias. Women may have responded very differently if tested.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

A03: What does it mean to say Zimbardo played a “dual role” in the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)?

A

Zimbardo was both the head investigator and the prison
superintendent; this resulted in a loss of objectivity and likely resulted in psychological harm for the participants.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

A03: What is another explanation not conformity to social roles) for the behaviour observed in the Stanford
Prison Experiment (SPE?

A

The prisoners and guards were play-acting according to TV stereotypes of prisoners and guards, so their behaviours could have been due to demand characteristics.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

A03: Referring to the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), what film is it claimed that the most aggressive guard may have based personality on?

A

Cool hand Luke. This guard’s behaviour may have been due to acting a role rather than a natural change due to the situation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

A03: Why does Zimbardos own data not support his claim that people perform social roles?

A

Only one third of the participants assigned to be a guard displayed aggression, and the prisoners attempted a rebellion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

A03: What about American prisons today may mean that Zimbardo’s study may have failed?

A

American prisons are still as aggressive today. This means it’s unlikely that the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) had any real-world impact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

A03: What is an alternate explanation for the aggression seen in American prisons?

A

Zimbardo argues that aggression is situational due to conforming to social roles, however, the aggression may be dispositional. Violent offenders bring aggression to the prison. Also officers need to use aggression as a required method of controlling dangerous individuals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

A03: Why is the sample in Zimbardos
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) considered a volunteer sample, and why could this be a problem?

A

It is a volunteer sample because the participants saw an advertisement in the newspaper and put themselves forward. An issue with this is that volunteer samples are often not like the general population, meaning results are not generalisable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

A03: Zimbardo’s research is considered unethical. If it was to be repeated, who would authorise a replication, and how would they decide?

A

An ethics committee would need to approve such a controversial replication; they would base their decision on a cost-benefit analysis, weighing up the potential harm vs potential benefits to society.

31
Q

A01: Define the Agentic state as an explanation for obedience.

A

Agentic state: State of mind in which the individual believes they don’t have responsibility for their behaviour as they are the agent of an authority figure. This allows the individuals to commit acts that they personally and morally oppose.

32
Q

A01: Describe what happens to people in the agentic state and what the opposite state is.

A

In the agentic state, they may feel discomfort because of their actions but feel they cannot resist the demands of the person in authority.
The opposite is an autonomous state, where an individual’s actions are free from control. Moving from one to the other is an Agentic shift.

33
Q

What historical event means the agentic state is problematic?

A

The Agentic state (following orders) has been used to justify war crimes.
For example, the Nazi who oversaw the death camps, Eichmann, claimed he only followed orders.

34
Q

A03: How does Blass & Smitt’s research support agentic state and Legitimacy of Authority?

A

When shown videos of Milgram’s original study, many participants also placed the responsibility for the electric shocks not with the participant, but with the authority figure.

35
Q

A01: Define Legitimacy of Authority as an explanation for obedience.

A

Individuals accept that others higher up the social hierarchy should be obeyed. There is a sense of duty to them, and these people have the right to punish others, such as the police force and criminal justice system.

36
Q

A01: Define Legitimacy of Authority as an explanation for obedience.

A

Legitimacy of Authority is learnt in childhood through socialisation, for example relationships such as parent/ child, teacher/student. Most people accept that Legitimacy of Authority is needed for society to function properly.

37
Q

A03: Why is it argued that obedience is dispositional (personality), not situational?

A

There are individual differences in agentic state and respect for the legitimacy of authority. E.g., in Milgram’s study, 35% of participants resisted the authority of the experimenter and refused to deliver the 450-volt shock to the “learner.”

38
Q

A03: How does Bickman’s (1974) research support Legitimacy of Authority?

A

Bickman (1974) demonstrated
Legitimacy of Authority in the real world using a field study. 39% of the public would pick up litter if asked by an investigator dressed as a security guard, but only 14% if the investigator was dressed as a milkman.

39
Q

A03: How does Milgram’s (1963) research support agentic state & Legitimacy of Authority?

A

The professor occupies a high level in the social hierarchy (Legitimacy of Authority). Participants often agreed to continue with shocks after the professor said he was responsible (supporting the agentic state). Also obedience dropped when the instructor had no uniform.

40
Q

A01: Outline Milgram’s original (1963)
study (Method only).

A

Forty males volunteers to a newspaper ad) were given the role of teacher, and a confederate was given the role of “learner”. Another confederate dressed as a professor instructed the participant to give electric shocks (fake ones) to the learner when they answered incorrectly. The electric shocks became more intense 15-450 volts) with each incorrect answer. If the participant (teacher) resisted, the
“professor” encouraged them to continue with prompts.

41
Q

A01: Outline the findings of Milgram’s original (1963) study.

A

Results: Participants were distressed but they obeyed. 100% continued to deliver shocks up to 300 volts, 12.5% stopped at 300 volts, and 65% continued to the full 450 volts.

42
Q

A01: Outline the method & findings of
Milgram’s proximity replication study.

A

Proximity replication: when the learner was in the same room as the participant, obedience dropped to 40%. When the participant held the learner’s hand on a shock plate, it dropped to 30%.

43
Q

A01: Outline the Method & findings of
Milgram’s location replication study.

A

Location replication: When repeated at an office block in a run-down area, obedience reduced to 47.6% due to a lack of Legitimacy of Authority.

44
Q

A01: Outline the methods and findings of Milgram’s uniform replication study.

A

Uniform Replication. A professor (in a labcoat) is replaced with a confederate in regular clothes.
Obedience dropped to 20%, due to a lack of Legitimacy of Authority.

45
Q

A03: State 3 ethical criticisms of Milgram’s study.

A

1) It lacked protection from harm, as it caused distress.
2) It lacked informed consent, as the study included deception.
3) It lacked a right to withdraw from the study.

46
Q

A03: Suggest 2 negative evaluations of all of Milgram’s variations.

A

1) The tasks lack mundane realism, meaning the task is highly artificial so may have little relevance to real-world obedience.
2) Demand characteristics; participants may have realised that the confederate was not actually being shocked, so they
“played along” by continuing to give shocks.

47
Q

A03: How does Hofling’s (1966) research support Milgram?

A

Hofling (1966). 21 out of 22 real nurses obeyed “Dr Smith’s” phone call order to give double the maximum dose of an unfamiliar drug. This was a field study with a familiar task, so, high ecological validity and mundane realism.

48
Q

A03: How does Bickman’s (1974) research support Milgram?

A

Bickman (1974) demonstrated obedience to authority in the real world using a field study. 39% of the public would pick up litter if asked by an investigator dressed as a security guard, but only 14% if the investigator wa dressed as a milkman.

49
Q

A01: Outline Adorno’s explanation of obedience.

A

Adorno argued high levels of obedience were due to dispositional factors. A high level of obedience is a psychological disorder (authoritarian personality). Adorno disagreed with Milgram, who suggested we are all capable of extreme obedience.
Adorno’s work was in response to anti-Semitism displayed in WW2.

50
Q

A01: Outline how Adorno studied the authoritarian personality.

A

Adorno (1950s) studied authoritarian personality with questionnaires.
Questions revealed unconscious feelings towards minority groups. He developed the F scale (F for fascism).

51
Q

A01: Outline one of the nine factors measured in the F-scale.

A

One of the nine factors measured was
Authoritarian Aggression: The tendency to be on the lookout for and condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.

52
Q

A01: Describe individuals who score high on the F-scale.

A

People who scored highly on the F scale showed high respect for people with higher social status, have fixed stereotypes for other groups, They also identified with “strong” people, and disliked “weak” people.

53
Q

A01: Explain why individuals develop an authoritarian personality.

A

Adorno suggested these people had their personalities shaped early in life by strict authoritative parenting with harsh physical punishments. Anger from this experience was displaced (Freud) onto others, mainly minority groups.

54
Q

A03: What was one issue with the F-scale questionnaire?

A

The original F-scale questionnaire
lacked internal validity. All the
questions were written in one
direction, meaning that agreeing to all questions will label someone as
authoritarian. This is known as response bias.

55
Q

A03: Why is Adorno’s theory of obedience politically problematic?

A

Authoritarian personality can be seen as a left-wing theory and inherently biased, as it suggests many individuals with a conservative political viewpoint as having a psychological disorder.

56
Q

A03: How does Elms’ and Milgram’s (1966) research support Adorno?

A

Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed participants who had taken part in the first 4 Milgram studies. Those who had shocked to the fu 450v scored higher on the F scale than those that refused to continue.

57
Q

A03: How does Altemeyer’s research support Adorno?

A

Altemeyer created a new scale to measure the authoritarian personality called the right-wing authoritarian scale. This fixed many issues with the F-scale but still showed an association between high Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and measures of prejudice.

58
Q

A01: Define social support as an explanation of resistance to social
Influence.

A

When we see others resist social
Influence, this reduces pressure to obey or conform, increasing the individual’s confidence.

59
Q

A01: Why does social support help individuals resist social Influence?

A

Either by providing a disobedient role model (obedience) or creating a small alternate group to belong to (conformity). It also breaks the group’s unanimity and challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure.

60
Q

A03: How does Asch’s research support the social support explanation?

A

In the unanimity variation, when the confederate provided social support by giving the correct response, conformity dropped significantly, from 32% of critical trials to just 5.5% of critical trials.

61
Q

A03: How does Asch’s research contradict the social support explanation?

A

Even with social support, people still give the wrong answer on an unambiguous task in 5.5% of trials, which suggests some people have a dispositional inability to resist social Influence.

62
Q

A01: What is Locus of Control (LOC) as an explanation of resistance to social
Influence?

A

Rotter (1966) suggests LOC is a factor of personality. This is a sense of what controls their lives, and can be measured on a scale ranging from a high internal LOC (themselves) to a high external (eg fate, government)
LOC. A high internal LOC is an ability to resist social influence pressure.

63
Q

A01: Explain the difference between a high external and high internal Locus of Control (LOC).

A

High internal LOC: These people feel their actions control their lives, and have responsibility for their own actions. They are less concerned with social approval. High external LOC:
These people feel their lives are controlled by external forces, such as other people, fate, and the government.

64
Q

A03: What other explanations for resistance to social influence may be more likely than Locus of Control
(LOC)?

A

Locus of control is a dispositional explanation of resistance. Others have found situational factors are critical to whether an individual can resist social influence. For example location and uniform (Milgram), and presence of social support (Asch).

65
Q

A03: How does Holland’s (1967) research support the Locus of Control (LOC) explanation?

A

In a replication of Milgram, participants were assessed for LOC.
37% of those with an internal LOC refused to obey and deliver the highest shock level, compared to 23% with an external LOC.

66
Q

A01: How do minorities attempt to change the majority’s view, and what does it lead to?

A

Minorities rely on informational Social
Influence (as they can’t use normative), and ISI results in internalisation, genuinely believing the new perspective. Minorities are more effective if they use consistency, commitment, and flexibility.

67
Q

A01: Why does a consistent minority group convince members of a majority?

A

By being consistent, the minority group demonstrates they are confident in their view, and by repeating the same message over time (diachronic consistency), the argument seems more powerful.

68
Q

A01: Why does a committed minority group convince members of a majority?

A

By being willing to suffer for their beliefs, the majority understand the minority is not working for personal gain, so they take the minority view more seriously.

69
Q

A01: Why does a flexible minority group convince members of a majority?

A

This allows the minority group to appear more reasonable and not dogmatic. If the minority is willing to compromise on their ideas, the majority is more likely to compromise too.

70
Q

A01: Why is minority influence often a slow process but eventually speeds up?

A

The snowball effect. As more of the majority starts to take on the new perspective, the minority grows in number, with more people converting members of the majority. Also, the views become more acceptable due to NSI.

71
Q

A03: Why may research studies on minority influence not be valid?

A

Many studies investigating minority influence are conducted on artificial groups making decisions without real consequences. However, social Influence in the real world often involves friends/co-workers with real consequences.

72
Q

A03: Explain why minority influence research could be seen as socially sensitive.

A

Knowledge of how minorities can influence majorities can be used for unethical deliberate manipulation.
This could be to forward negative political and corporate agendas, such as greenwashing and spreading fake political news.

73
Q

A03: Outline how Moscovici’s (1969) study supports minority influence.

A

Demonstrates the importance of consistency. A confederate minority who consistently called blue slides green managed to convince more participant members of a majority group to also call the slides green (8.2%) than an inconsistent (1.25%)

74
Q

A03: Outline how Nemeth’s (1986) study supports minority influence.

A

Demonstrated the importance of flexibility. When a confederate (minority) was inflexible in arguing for a low level of compensation for a ski accident, 3 participants were less likely to change their amount than if the confederate was flexible.

Y12 Psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions