Social Influence Flashcards

Question

identification (AO1)

Answer 1

sometimes we conform to the opinion/behaviour of a group as there is something about the group we value. We identify with the group, so we want to be a part of it. This identification may change our opinion/behaviour to be accepted by the group, even if we don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for

Answer 2

involves going along with others in public but privately not changing personal opinions and/or behaviour. Compliance results in only a superficial change. It means that a particular behaviour or opinion stop as soon as the group pressure stops.

Answer 3

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard (1955) argue that there are two main reasons people conform. They are based on two central human needs: the need to be right (ISI) and the need to be liked (NSI)

Answer 4

- is about who has better information you or the rest of the group. Often we are uncertain about what behaviours/beliefs are right or wrong. E.g. you may not know the answer to a question but most of your class gives one answer you accept it as you feel they are likely to be right. - We follow the behaviour of majority as we want to be right. - ISI is a cognitive process as it is to do with what you think. Leads to a permanent change in opinion/behaviour (internalisation) - More likely to happen in situations are new to a person or where there is some ambiguity or in crisis situations where decisions have to be made quickly and we assume that the group is likely to be right

Answer 5

is about norms or typical behaviour for a social group. Norms regulate behaviour of groups and individual so people pay attention to them. People do not like to appear foolish and prefer to gain social approval rather than be rejected - NSI is an emotional process. - Likely to occur in situation with strangers where you may feel concerned about rejection. May occur with people you know as you are more concerned about the social approval of friends. - Maybe more pronounced stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support

Answer 6

Strength of NSI: Evidence shows it is an explanation of conformity - e.g when Asch interviewed his participants, some said they conformed as they felt self-conscious given the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval when participants wrote down conformity to 12.5% as giving answers privately meant there was no normal group pressure showing that at least conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them (NSI)

Answer 7

strength: there is research evidence to support it from the study by Todd Lucas et al - Found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the math problems were difficult as problems were easy. Participants knew their own mind but when problems were hard situation became ambiguous. Participants did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.

Answer 8

it is often clear whether it is NSI or ISI in recent studies or in real life. E.g. Asch found out conformity is reduced when there is one other descending participant. The descent may reduce the power of NSI as they provide social support or they may reduce the power of ISI as they provide an alternative source of social information. - It is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in real world conformity situations

Answer 9

limitation: NSI does not predict conformity in every case. Some people are greatly concerned with being lacked by others. E.g. people are called NAiffilators (have a strong need for affiliation) - Paul McGhee and Richard Teevan (1967) found the students who were nAfiiliators were more likely to conform showing that NSI underlines conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.

Answer 10

suggest that distinction is not useful as it is important to work out which is operating. Lucas findings could be due to NSI, ISI or both however Asch’s research demonstrates both NSI and ISI as reasons for conformity in terms of group anonymity and a group is a powerful source of disapproval. The possibility of rejection is a strong reason for NSI. - But unanimous group can show ISI

Answer 11

The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger. These are accompanied by expectations we and other have or what is appropriate behaviour in each role e,g caring, obedient, industrious etc

Answer 12

1970s Philip Zimbardo and colleagues conducted study due to prison riots in America - wanted to know why prison guards behave brutally- was it due to their sadistic personality or social role (as a prison guard)?

Answer 13

- Zimbardo (1973) set up a mock prison in basement of psychology department at Stanford University - 21 male student volunteers tested as emotionally stable were randomly assigned role of guard/prisoner - Prisoners + guards were encouraged to conform to social roles through uniforms + instructions about their behaviour

Answer 14

- Uniforms: prisoners given loose smock + cap to wear to cover their hair and were identified by number - guards had uniform to reflect on social role with wooden clubs, handcuffs, mirror shades - uniforms created de-individualisation meaning they were more likely to conform due to the perceived social role

Answer 15

prisoners were encouraged to identify with their role by: - rather than leaving study early, they could apply for parole. - guards were reminded they had complete power over prisoners

Answer 16

- guards took roles with enthusiasm + treated prisoners harshly - within 2 days prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and shouting + swearing at the guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers - guards used ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics by playing the prisoners off against each other and harassed prisoners constantly (e.g frequent headcount, some at night) to remind them of the powerlessness of their role - they showed difference in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules + administer punishments - guards became increasingly brutal + aggressive with some enjoying power over prisoners

Answer 17

- after the rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed anxious - one was released due to psychological disturbance + 2 more on the fourth day - one went on hunger strike and guards tried to force feed him and then punished him by putting him in the ‘hole’ (a tiny dark closet) - zimbardo ended the study after 6 days instead of 14.

Answer 18

- social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour - guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive - roles were easily taken on by all participants. even volunteers who came in to perform specific functions (e.g prison chaplain) found themselves behaving like they were in a real prison rather than a study

Answer 19

- strength: selection of participants who were emotionally-stable and randomly assigned to the 2 roles which riled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If participants behaved differently but were in those roles only by chance then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself - this control over variables increased internal validity making conclusions about influence of roles on conformity accurate

Answer 20

limitation: did not have realism of true prison - Ali Banuazizi and Simak Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a social role - participants’ performance was based on stereotypes of how prisoners + guards behave e.g one guard claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’ which explains why the prisoners rioted as they thought real prisoners did that - so suggests findings tell us little about conformity to social role in actual prisons

Answer 21

Mark McDermott (2019) argued that participants did behave as if prison was real to them - 90% of prisoners’ conversations were about prison life where they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their ‘prison sentences were over’ - Prisoner 416 explained how he believed prison was a real one but run by psychologists rather than than government suggesting that SPE did replicate social roles of prisons and guards in a real prison giving high internal validity

Answer 22

Limitation: Zimbardo may have exaggerated power of social roles to influence behaviour (Fromm 1973) e.g only 1/3 of guards actually behaved brutally. 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly. the rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners where they sympathised, offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges (Zimbardo 2007) but more guards were able to to resist situational pressures to conform to brutal role - this suggest Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles + minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g personality)

Answer 23

Zimbardo’s explanation for their behaviour was conforming to social roles comes naturally and easily. being given the role of the guard means that participants will inevitably behave brutally as that is the expected role - limitation: Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam (2006) say Zimbardo’s explanation does not account for behaviour of non brutal guards. they used social identity theory (SIT) to argue that guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act as they did

Answer 24

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. the person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Answer 25

Stanley Milgram (1963) designed a baseline procedure to assess obedience levels - this procedure was adapted in later variations by Milgram and baseline findings were used to make comparisons

Answer 26

Milgram's study at Yale University involved 40 American male volunteers, who believed they were participating in a memory experiment. Each volunteer was paired with a confederate acting as the Learner, while the real participant was assigned as the Teacher in a fixed draw. An Experimenter, also a confederate, oversaw the setup.

Answer 27

The Teacher could hear but not see the Learner and was instructed to administer an electric shock for each mistake made by the Learner. The shocks increased in 15-volt increments, up to a maximum of 450 volts, though they were not real.

Answer 28

All participants administered shocks up to 300 volts. While 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts, 65% continued to the full 450 volts, showing full obedience. - Milgram collected qualitative data including observations e.g participants showed signs of extreme tension such as sweat, tremble, stutter, biting lips, dig fingernails into their hands - three had full blown uncontrollable seizures

Answer 29

Predictions vs. Actual: Milgram consulted 14 psychology students who predicted only 3% would reach 450 volts, far lower than the actual obedience rate. Debriefing and Follow-Up: All participants were debriefed, assured of the normalcy of their reactions, and given a follow-up questionnaire. 84% expressed they were glad to have participated.

Answer 30

Conclusions: Milgram concluded that Americans, like Germans, were willing to obey harmful orders, highlighting situational factors influencing obedience. This spurred further studies to explore these factors.

Answer 31

Male volunteers, aged 20-50, from the New Haven, Connecticut area, recruited via newspaper ads or mail. Each was paid $4.50 Learner Setup: The Learner, "Mr. Wallace," was strapped to a chair and connected to electrodes. The Teacher (actual participant) received a small real shock initially to understand the sensation, the only real shock administered. Task: The Learner memorized word pairs, and each mistake led to a progressively stronger shock, administered by the Teacher using a "shock machine" in a separate room. The switches were labeled from “slight shock” up to “danger - severe shock.” Learner’s Reactions: At 300 volts, the Learner pounded on the wall and did not answer the next question. At 315 volts, he pounded again and then fell silent for the remainder of the procedure.

Answer 32

strength: Milgram’s findings were replicated in the 2012 French documentary Le Jeu de la Mort by Beauvois et al., where 80% of participants in a staged game show administered a 460-volt shock to an apparently unconscious actor. Participants showed stress behaviors similar to Milgram’s participants, supporting the idea that Milgram's findings about obedience were not due to unique circumstances.

Answer 33

Limitation: may not have genuinely tested obedience, as Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants didn’t fully believe the shocks were real. Gina Perry’s (2013) analysis of tapes from Milgram’s experiment found only half of participants thought the shocks were real, and two-thirds of these were disobedient, indicating that some may have acted to meet perceived expectations (demand characteristics).

Answer 34

In contrast, Sheridan and King’s (1972) experiment with real shocks to a puppy showed that 54% of male and 100% of female participants obeyed orders even when the shocks were real, supporting the idea that obedience observed in Milgram's study could have been genuine

Answer 35

Haslam et al. (2014) suggested that Milgram’s study didn’t reflect blind obedience but rather selective obedience aligned with social identity theory (SIT). Participants followed the Experimenter’s first three prods (related to scientific aims) but disobeyed the fourth (“You have no other choice, you must go on”). This implies participants obeyed when they felt aligned with the study’s purpose, not merely due to authority pressure, aligning with Milgram’s suggestion that identification with scientific goals can drive obedience.

Answer 36

-Participants in this study were deceived. e.g the participants thought that the allocation of roles (Teacher and Learner) was random, but in fact it was fixed. They also thought the shocks were real. Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants. - However, Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram for deceiving his participants. She objected as she believed that deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers.

Answer 37

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour (such as proximity, location and uniform). The alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality.

Answer 38

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to. Also refers to the physical closeness of the Teacher to the victim (Learner) in Milgram's studies

Answer 39

The place where an order is issued. The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location.

Answer 40

People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example police officers and judges. This indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience.

Answer 41

To find out whether situational variables lead to less or more obedience

Answer 42

When the Teacher and Learner were in the same room, the obedience rate dropped from 65% in the baseline study to 40%, showing the impact of increased physical closeness on obedience. In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher had to physically force the Learner’s hand onto an electroshock plate when they refused to respond, which further decreased obedience to 30%. When the Experimenter gave instructions over the phone instead of being physically present, obedience dropped even further to 20.5%. Many participants also pretended to administer shocks in this condition.

Answer 43

Reduced proximity creates a psychological distance, making it easier for individuals to detach from the harm they are causing, which increases obedience. In the baseline study, physical separation between the Teacher and Learner enabled the Teacher to be less affected by the Learner’s distress, facilitating higher obedience.

Answer 44

Percentage of fully obedient participants - Baseline study at Yale university: 65% - Location variation to run down office: 47.5% - Proximity variation:T and L in the same room: 40% - Touch proximity T forces L’s hand onto plate: 30% - Remote instruction variation experimenter gave orders by phone: 20.5% - Uniform variation experimenter played member of public: 20%

Answer 45

Migram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than in the prestigious Vale University setting of the baseline study. In this location, obedience fell to 47.5%.

Answer 46

The prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority - Participants were more obedient in this location as they perceived that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block as participants perceived the scientific' nature of the procedure.

Answer 47

- the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform). In one variation: Experimenter was called away due to an inconvenient telephone call at the start of the procedure. The role of Experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. - obedience rate dropped to 20%, the lowest of these variations.

Answer 48

Uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (i.e. it is granted by society). Someone without a uniform has less right to expect our obedience.

Answer 49

strength: other studies showed influence of situational variables on obedience. In a field experiment in New York City, Leonard Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit and a security guard's uniform. - confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. - People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie. This supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience.

Answer 50

strength: findings have been replicated in other cultures. e.g, Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's to study obedience in Dutch participants. The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of the participants obeyed +also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity. When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically. - so Milgram's findings about obedience are not just limited to Americans or males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too.

Answer 51

replications of Milgram's research are not very 'cross-cultural. Peter Smith and Michael Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in 'non-Western' countries (India and Jordan). Others countries involved (e.g. Spain, Australia, Scotland) are not that culturally different from the United States. e.g they have similar notions about the role of authority. - so it may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings (including those about proximity, location and uniform) apply to people in all or most cultures.

Answer 52

limitation: participants may have been aware the procedure was faked- Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) . - said it is even more likely in his variations due to extra manipulation of variables. e.g variation where the Experimenter is replaced by a member of the public: Even Milgram recognised that situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth. - so in all of Milgram's studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and just 'play-acted' (ie. responded to demand characteristics).

Answer 53

Milgram's research findings support a situational explanation of obedience (proximity, location and uniform are all aspects of the situation). But criticised by David Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse or 'alibi’ for evil behaviour + believes it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milgram's explanation also ignores role of dispositional factors (such as personality), implying Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control.

Answer 54

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

Answer 55

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.

Answer 56

Stanley Migram’s interest in obedience came from Adolf Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes who had been in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders - so Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs as a person does not take responsibility. Instead they believe they are acting for someone else, ie, that they are an 'agent. An 'agent is someone who acts for or in place of another. An agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.

Answer 57

- means to be independent or free. So person in autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles + feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to 'agency is called the agentic shift. Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. authority figure has greater power as they have a higher position in a social hierarchy. In most social groups, when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency.

Answer 58

Milgram observed many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so. - wondered why they remained in an agentic state. The answer is binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour so reduce the 'moral strain' they feel. - proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, e.g shifting the responsibility to victim (he was foolish to volunteer') or denying damage they were doing to the victims.

Answer 59

- societies are structured in a hierarchical way. so people in certain positions hold authority over others. e.g parents, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers have authority at times + is legitimate as it is agreed by society. - Many accept authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others as society functions smoothly. - however this legitimacy of authority means people have power to punish others. - police and courts have power to punish wrongdoers. So we give up some of our independence for others to use their authority - acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents then teachers and adults generally.

Answer 60

Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. - History shows that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous. Destructive authority was obvious in Milgram's study, when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.

Answer 61

strength: Milgram's studies support role of the agentic state in obedience. - most participants resisted giving the shocks at some point, and often asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure. e.g Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (the Learner) is harmed? When the Experimenter replied I'm responsible, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. This shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the Experimenter's agent, as Milgram suggested.

Answer 62

limitation: agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience. e.g does not explain the findings of Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson's (1977) found 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. But almost all nurses remained autonomous, like many of Milgram's participants. - so the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

Answer 63

David Mandel (1998) described one incident in the Second World War involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101. These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred), i.e. they behaved autonomously.

Answer 64

strength: it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Many studies show that countries differ in levels of obedience authority e.g Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann (1974) found only 16% of female Australian participants went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study. However, David Mantell (1971) found for German participants - 85% - so in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. - different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

Answer 65

limitation: legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. - e.g nurses in Rank and Jacobson's study (above). Most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure + significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite Experimenter's authority. - so some people may just be more (or less) obedient than others, It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.

Answer 66

Rank and Jacobson (see above) found that nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority (a doctor. - But Herbert Kelman and Lee Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre, see Apply it on the facing page) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army. Commanding officers (COs) operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish.

Answer 67

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality (i.e. their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations.

Answer 68

(AP) A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.

Answer 69

Like Milgram, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues wanted to understand the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust. - Their research led them to draw different conclusions from Migram's: believed a high level of obedience was a psychological disorder (ie. pathological) - believed that the causes of such a disorder lie in the personality of the individual rather than in the situation, ie. it is a dispositional explanation

Answer 70

Adorno et al. argued people with Authoritarian Personality (AP) show extreme respect + submissiveness to authority - believed people view society as weaker than it once was, so believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values e.g love of country and family which make people with Authoritarian Personality more likely to obey orders from authority - they also show contempt for those of inferior social status. This is fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world - for them there are no grey areas. Everything is either right or wrong and they are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. - so people who are other le.g. belong to a different ethnic group) are responsible for the ills of society. 'Other' people are a convenient target for authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive (as in Nazi Germany).

Answer 71

Adorno et al. believed it forms in childhood, mainly due to harsh parenting (extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings). Parents give conditional love depending on how their child behaves - argued that these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child but cannot express these feelings as they fear punishment. So their fears are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, (scapegoating). This explains the hatred towards people considered to be socially inferior or who belong to other social groups, a central feature of obedience to a higher authority. - This is a psychodynamic explanation.

Answer 72

(1950) studied more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans + their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups - had several measurement scales, e.g the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale). This scale is still used to measure Authoritarian Personality. F-scale examples: 'Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn, and 'There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.

Answer 73

- People authoritarian leanings (i.e. those who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with strong' people and were scornful of the weak. - were conscious of status (their own and others') and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status (obedience) Adorno et al. also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style (way of perceiving others) in which there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people (i.e. black and white thinking). - They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups - strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Answer 74

strength: evidence from Milgram supporting the Authoritarian Personality. - Milgram + Alan Elms (Elms and Milgram 1966), interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and been fully obedient who did the F-scale (and other measures) as part of the interview. These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants. The two groups were different in terms of authoritarianism. - so Adorno et al's view that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have an Authoritarian Personality.

Answer 75

- researchers analysed the individual subscales + they found that the obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. e.g unlike authoritarians, Milgram's obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers. - meaning that the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex. - obedient participants were unlike authoritarians that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of obedience.

Answer 76

limitation: authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a country's population. - e.g in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour despite differing personalities - it is extremely unlikely that they all possess an Authoritarian Personality. - alternative view:majority of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state + scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews, a social identity theory approach. - so Adorno's theory is limited because an alternative explanation is much more realistic.

Answer 77

limitation: F-scale only measures tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology. Richard Christie + Marie Jahoda (1954): argued F-scale is a politically-biased interpretation of Authoritarian Personality - point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism. In fact, extreme right-wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common. For example they both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority. - so Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.

Answer 78

strength: research with the F-scale has provided the basis of an explanation of obedience based on Authoritarian Personality. limitation: Fred Greenstein (1969) calls the F-scale 'a comedy of methodological errors as it is a seriously flawed scale. e.g, it is possible to get a high score just by selecting agree answers - so anyone with this response bias is assessed as having an Authoritarian Personality.

Answer 79

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 situational and dispositional factors

Answer 80

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

Answer 81

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 (internal locus of control) Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control).

Answer 82

pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming. Solomon Asch's research: confederate who is not conforming may not be giving the right' answer (someone else is not following the majority is social support.) allowing naive participant to follow their own conscience. - confederate acts as a 'model' of independent behaviour. Their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous.

Answer 83

resistance to obey happens if there is another person who is seen to disobey. - one of Milgram's variations: rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. - the other person's disobedience acts as a model' of dissent for the participant to copy and this frees him to act from his own conscience. - disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.

Answer 84

Julian Rotter (1966): it is concept concerned with internal control versus external control. - those with internal LOC (internals) believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves. e.g, if you do well in an exam it is as you worked hard, if you don't do well it is as you didn't work hard. - others have an external LOC (externals) - believe they can’t control things that happen. e.g if they did well in an exam it was as they used a good textbook. If they failed they might blame it on the textbook or they had bad luck as questions were hard.

Answer 85

People are not just either internal or external. LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it. So, high internal LOC is at one end of the continuum and high external at the other. Low internal and low external lie in-between.

Answer 86

those with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. If someone takes responsibility for their actions and experiences they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others (low internal LOC) Another explanation: people with a high internal LOC tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence. These traits lead to greater resistance to social influence. These are also characteristics of leaders, who have much less need for social approval than followers.

Answer 87

strength: research evidence for the positive effects of social support. - e.g, Susan Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor or buddy. At the end of the programme adolescents who had a buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a buddy. - shows social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.

Answer 88

strength: research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. William Gamson et al's (1982) participants were told to produce evidence for helping an oil company run a smear campaign. - researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram probably as participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do. 29/33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders. - showing peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining legitimacy of an authority figure.

Answer 89

Vernon Allen and John Levine (1971): social support can help individuals to resist the influence of a group. In an Asch-type task, when the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight, 64% of genuine participants refused to conform. When there was no supporter at all only 3% of participants resisted. However, the study also showed that social support does not always help. This is because when the dissenter had obviously poor eyesight (thick glasses) resistance was only 36%.

Answer 90

strength: research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Charles Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. - found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (ie. they showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of externals did not continue. In other words, internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation. - showing that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience.

Answer 91

limitation: evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance. Jean Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40-year period (from 1960 to 2002). - data showed over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but more external. If resistance is linked to an internal locus of control, we would expect people to have become more internal. - suggests locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.

Answer 92

many studies (e.g. Holland 1967) show that having an internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence. - However, Rotter (1982): LOC is not the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence + depends on the situation. A person's LOC only significantly affects their behaviour in new situations. If you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so again in that situation regardless of whether you have a high internal or high external LOC.

Answer 93

A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.

Answer 94

Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority. Consistency is effective because it draws attention to the minority view.

Answer 95

Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, for example, by making personal sacrifices. This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest.

Answer 96

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.

Answer 97

- situations where one person or a small group of people (ie. a minority) influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people. different from conformity as majority is doing the influencing (and thus conformity is sometimes called majority influence). - both cases: people being influenced may be just one person, or a small group or a large group of people. Minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation - both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process. Serge Moscovii first studied this process in his 'blue slide, green slide study (see below left). This study and other research have drawn attention to three main processes in minority influence.

Answer 98

minority must be consistent in their views which increases the amount of interest from other people. - can take the form of agreement between people in the minority group (synchronic consistency - they're all saying the same thing), over time (diachronic consistency - they've been saying the same thing for some time now. - makes other people start to rethink their own views

Answer 99

minority must demonstrate commitment to their cause or views. Sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views. It is important that these extreme activities present some risk to the minority as this shows greater commitment. - Majority group members then pay even more attention

Answer 100

Charlan Nemeth (1986) argued consistency can be off-putting + may be seen as rigid, unbending and dogmatic. - This approach on its own is unlikely to gain many converts to the minority position. Instead, members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments. The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.

Answer 101

All of the three factors outlined above make people think about the minority's view or cause. Hearing something you already agree with doesn't usually make you stop and think. But if you hear something new, then you might think more deeply about it, especially if the source of this other view is consistent, committed and flexible. It is this deeper processing which is important in the process of conversion to a different, minority viewpoint. Over time, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position. They have become converted. The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. This is called the snowball effect (like a snowball gathering more snow as it rolls along). Gradually the minority view has become the majority view and change has occurred.

Answer 102

strength: research evidence showing importance of consistency. - Moscovici et al.’s blue/green slide study showed that consistent minority opinion had greater effect on changing views of other people than an inconsistent opinion. - Wendy Wood et al. (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential. - so presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority.

Answer 103

strength: evidence showing that a change in the majority's position does involve deeper processing of the minority's ideas. Robin Martin et al. (2003) presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants' agreement. One group of participants then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard a majority group agree with it. Participants were exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again + were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group. - so the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect, supporting the central argument about how minority influence works.

Answer 104

Martin et als make clear distinctions between the majority and the minority. - Doing this in a controlled way is a strength of minority influence research. But real-world social influence situations are much more complicated. e.g, majorities usually have more power + status than minorities. Minorities are very committed to their causes - they have to be as they often face hostile opposition. These features are usually absent from minority influence research - the minority is simply the smallest group. - so Martin et al's findings are very limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real-world situations.

Answer 105

limitation: tasks involved are often just as artificial as Asch's line judgement task. - Moscovici et al.s task of identifying the colour of a slide so research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life. In cases such as jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are more important, sometimes a matter of life or death. - so findings of minority influence studies are lacking in external validity and are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-world social situations.

Answer 106

Moscovici et al's study, the figure for agreement with a consistent minority was very low, average 8% so minority influence is rare and not a useful concept. But when participants wrote down their answers privately, they were more likely to agree with the minority view. - so view expressed by people in public was just the 'tip of the iceberg

Answer 107

The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.

Answer 108

This occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things. Examples include accepting that the Earth orbits the Sun, women's suffrage, gay rights and environmental issues.

Answer 109

real-world example - the African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. (1) Drawing attention through social proof -1950s, black + white segregation was in all parts of America with black neighbourhoods+ southern states of America with certain schools and restaurants exclusive to whites. - civil rights marches of this period on this situation, providing social proof of the problem. (2) Consistency - Civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population, but their position remained consistent. Millions of people took part in many marches over several years, always presenting the same non-aggressive messages. (3) Deeper processing of the issue - The activism meant that many people who had simply accepted the status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of it. (4) The augmentation principle - Individuals risked their lives e.g 'freedom riders' were mixed racial groups + boarded buses in the south, challenging segregation of transport. Many were beaten. indicating a strong belief + reinforces (or augments) their message. (5) The snowball effect - Activists (eg. Martin Luther King) gradually got the attention of the US government. More people backed the minority position. In 1964 the US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination (6) Social cryptomnesia (people have a memory that change has occurred but don't remember how it happened) - Social change did come about so the south is quite a different place now. But some people have no memory (cryptoamnesia) of the events that led to that change.

Answer 110

Solomon Asch's research showed importance of dissent in one variation where one confederate gave correct answers in the procedure. This broke power of the majority, encouraging others to do likewise +has the potential to ultimately lead to social change. A different approach is one used by environmental and health campaigns which exploit conformity processes by appealing to normative social influence. They do this by providing information about what other people are doing. e.g reducing litter by printing normative messages on litter bins, preventing young people smoking (telling them that most other young people do not smoke) - so social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing.

Answer 111

Stanley Milgram's demonstrates importance of disobedient role models. In the variation where a confederate Teacher refuses to give shocks to the Learner, rate of obedience in the genuine participants dropped. Philip Zimbardo (2007) suggested obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one. People essentially drift' into a new kind of behaviour.

Answer 112

strength: research shows social influence processes based on psychological research do work. Jessica Nolan et al. (2008) aimed to see if they could change people's energy-use habits. researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for one month. The key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people's behaviour. There were significant decreases in energy usage in the first group compared to the second. - so conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence, i.e. it is a valid explanation.

Answer 113

some studies show people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms. - David Foxcroft et al. 2015) reviewed social norms interventions as part of the gold standard' Cochrane Collaboration. This review included 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use. The researchers found only a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency. - so using normative influence does not always produce long-term social change.

Answer 114

strength: psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change. Charlan Nemeth (2009): social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire. When people consider minority arguments, they engage in divergent thinking. This type of thinking is broad rather than narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options. - argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues. - showing why dissenting minorities are valuable - they stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way that majorities cannot.

Answer 115

limitation: deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change. Some people are supposedly converted as they think more deeply about the minority's views. Diane Mackie (1987) disagrees with evidence that majority influence may create deeper processing if you do not share their views as we like to believe that other people share our views and think in the same ways as us. When we find that a majority believes something different, then we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning. - so a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change.

Answer 116

research on this spread provides a lot of practical advice useful to a minority wanting to influence majority opinion or behaviour (e.g. the importance of consistency). However, Nadia Bashir et al. (2013): the fact is that people still resist social change. e.g, Bashir et al. found that their participants were less likely to behave in environmentally-friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with stereotypical and minority 'environmentalists. They described environmental activists in negative ways (e.g. 'tree-huggers'). Despite this resistance, the researchers were still able to suggest ways in which minorities can overcome barriers to social change.