SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
Types of conformity a01
- Theory made by Hebert Kellerman (1958)
- internalisation, compliance, identification
Explanations of conformity a01
- Theory made by Deutsch and Gerald (1955)
- NSI
- ISI
Strength of NSI as an explanation for conformity
- There is Supporting evidence
- for example Asch (1951): dissenter, wrote down fell to 12.5%
Strength of ISI as an explanation for conformity
- research support
- Todd Lucas et al. (2006)
- math’s questions difficult people conformed to wrong answer
Counterpoint to ISI as an explanation strength
- unclear if ISI/ NSI is at work
- e.g. Asch (1955)
Weakness of NSI
- does not predict conformity in every case
- e.g.. Naffiliators
- Paul McGee, Richard Teevan (1967), Naffiliators students more likely to conform
Asch baseline study (1951) a01
- what extent will people conform
- American males,
- x- abc standard and comparison line
- 6-8, 1 c each group
- 36.8 conformed, ID- 25%
Asch group size study variation a01
1955
- if group size more important than agreement
- 1-15, 2-16
- curvilinear, 3 confederates 31.8%
- sensitive to views: 1-2 c can sway opinions
Asch unanimity study variation a01
1955
- dissenter that went against confederate different (wrong) answer
- conformed less in precense, naive to confident even remained when dissenter questioned
- 1/4 level when majority was unanimous
- influence on majority depends on it being unanimous
Asch variation study task difficulty a01
1955
-sitmuli, comparison similar harder
- ambigious situation harder ISI
Evaluate Asch studies - short
Artificial task and situation, pps only american men (Susan Fiske 2014, bond and smith 1996), support from other studies on task difficulty (todd lucas et all.) however todd states conformity is more complex.
Zimbardo’s prison experiment a01
- Zimbardo’s (1973) Stanford prison experiment is example of people conforming to roles
- 21 american male participants selected to attend mock prison in basement stanford uni
- Participants selected were most ‘emotionally stable’, Randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard
- Zimbardo used techniques to influence pps to conform more to their social roles
Eg: Uniforms - guards: reflective glasses, handcuffs, Other hand prisoners were numbered, caps
Eg: Behavioural Instructions - complete power, leave when parole over - Experiment was meant to last 14: wife - 6 days due to breakdowns (eg: #416 hunger strike, force fed the hole, harassed,)
Milgram’s shock experiment baseline a01
- Milgram (1963), large German pop people obeyed hitlers commands?
- 40 american men, yale uni memory: punishment affect learning
- Arrived - introduced other PPS (confederate) draw lots T/L (fixed)
- Couldn’t see, Electric ‘shock’ when PP incorrect answer, Increased 15, 450V
300V, 12.5 stop, 65% full
Obedience variations findings
Proximity (65-40, 30, 20.5) , location (47.5) uniform, (20)
weaknesses of Milgram’s (1963) shock experiment full ao3
- Weakness: not studying what intended to
Milgram reported 75% real, Orne & Holland (1968) - play acting, didn’t believe set up
Perry (2013) confirms, tapes ½ real, ⅔ were disobedient.
Suggests PPs, responding to demand characteristics, low internal validity
A03:
- Weakness: Major ethical issues
Eg: Deception used to carry out, right to withdraw (encourage), emotionally stressed - not protected from psychological harm
Milgram responded that they were debriefed, Diana (1964) - deception in studies, consequences
Shows methodology, many ethical debates in society, hard to replicate.
A03:
- Weakness: blind obedience conclusion not justified
Haslam et al (1974) show: obey 3 prods, 4 ‘YHNFCYMC’ disobeyed.
SIT: PPs obeyed when identified w scientific aims, blindly obey refused.
SIT valid explanation findings, different theory (m agree science reason)
Evaluate Stanford prison experiment full
trength - zimbardo/ colleagues high control
Eg: selection of participants - emotionally stable, randomly allocated
This is a way researchers ruled our individual differences - explanation for findings. Behavioral differences - by chance.
Degree of control - internal validity
- Weakness - SPE lacked mundane realism
Banuazizi & Movahhedi (1975) argued - play acting than conforming to SR
Bc: PPs behaviours - stereotypes (cool hand luke)
This explains why rioted - thought real prisons did
Findings cant be generalised to conformity in actual prisons - lacks ecological vadity
A03:
- However - Mark dermott (2019) argues believed real
Eg: 90% prisoners convos (leave before ‘sentence’, #416 psych> GOV)
Suggests did replicate SR in prison, internal validity
- A03:
Weakness - major ethical issues
Eg: PP wanted to leave, role of police superintendent> researcher with ethical responsibility.
Thought couldn’t leave, said to be: emotionally disturbed, PTSD, wasn’t protected
Zimbardo’s disregards on methodology, not replicable today
Milgram shock experiment variations a01
- Variations of baseline, situational variables (compare as write)
- Proximity: same room> hear not see, 65- 40 - Touch, 30%, E left room, 20.5% - detached
- Location: run down office block - 47.5% - LOA
- Uniform: E called away, ordinary public (confederate) - 20% - symbol
Evaluate situational explanations to obedience
Weakness: there’s Research findings agentic shift can’t explain
Eg: Milgram research, not all PPS obeyed, Humans social animals, social hierarchies, in theory all obey
Additionally, steve and jackson (1982) study - 16/18 nurses disobeyed to doctor r(
authority) excessive drugs - role in destructive process, not case remained
'’autonomous
Show: agentic shift only be applied for some situations of obedience
A03:
Strength: legitimacy explains cultural differences in obedience
Eg: studies, diff extent of obedient to authority. Kilham and Man (1974) 16 F AUS, Mantell GERMAN 85
Countries: authority more legitimate, entitled to demand obedience from individuals
Milgram’s theory, generalised to different cultures, ecological validity
A03:
Strength: research support role of agentic shift
Eg: milgram - most PPs resisted, asked q, “who’s responsible if mr wallace is harmed”, E “im”.
No objections, went through
Shows: PPs no longer responsible, acted as E agent, validity
Dispositional explanations to obedience
- Theodore Orne understand antisemitism of holocaust
- believed people with Authoritarian P: respect for authority, society weaker need powerful leaders.
- make obey more
- Ap comes from childhood, harsh parenting; fears displaced obey more
- Theory data
- 200 middle class white Americans, attitudes other race - developed measurement scales
-F scale (give example of q) - Authoritarian (high s), cognitive style, steoryotes, positive correlation - prejudice
evaluate Dispositional explanations into obedience - Adorno
- strength: supporting evidence
- Milgram, ellms (..66) interview PPs from SE
did f scale - 20 PPs obedient = higher score to disobedient, different authoritarians
- findings support, validity
however: subscales of f scale identified obedient unusual for authoritarian
- didn’t glorify fathers, no punishment childhood, hostilism to mothers
- link O/A is complex. Autho less likely explanation - less reliable.
- weakness: cant explain obedience in majority of country’s population
- eg: war GERM: racist, obedient all but diff in personality some way, unlikely all authoritarian
- majority anti semitic state - SID
- limited theory, alternate explanation, realistic
- investigated USA , individualists: bond and smith 1999- generalisability.
Evaluate resistance to social influence full
+ real world RS for SS, Susan et a 2006 - TFS USA (8 PG peg 14-19 PP to smoke), SS provided by older ‘buddy’, PP buddy less likely to smoke than control group, SS help young people in real world.
+ research support for dissenting peers role
- William et al 82 PPs evidence, oil, smear campaign
- high lvl resistence then M - groups (88%)
- peer support - undermine legitimacy of AF
+ RS link LOC and Obedience
- holland M style study, internal (37%) external (25%) I more resistant
- Shows related LOC, validity
- America - bond and smith
Resisting to social influence a01
- resisting pressure to conform (Asch Confed) someone else - social support
- resisting obedience - other disobey, 65-10%
- model, free own conscious
- disobedient challenges LOA making easy to ebey.
- LOC rotter (66), internal external
- give eg
- LOC continuum - not either measure of both eg. high one low other
- high LOC resist conform, obey - responsibility, base own beleifs
How does a minority’s influence work a01
- small group influence B/B of others
- conformity diff majority influence
- internalisation why?
- Moscovici blue slide, green slide study - main processes
- consistency: synchronic, diachronic - rethink views
- commitment: extreme activities attention to views, risks to minority - attention (“eg”) Argumentation principle
- flexibility: Namath argue- balance consistency, flexibility - not rigid, adapt views and accept reasonable valid counterarguments
- 3 factor deeper processing in conversation, inc maj to min: snowball effect
evaluate Minority influence full a03
+ RS consistency
Mosco vici et al: blue/ green slide consistent minority> effect of inconsistent
Meta analysis- 100 similar minorities consistent most influenceal, confidence
theory findings, validity
+ flexibility
Namath (87) 3 real, 1 confederate mock jury compensation victim
inflexible confed - 50K less able to convince
flexible - increasing to 100k convince
flexibility theory predict findings of sudy, validity
- lab studies
- miscovici Nemeth artificial
- real life, social issues> meaningless
- generalised, ecological validity
- real life examples: c, f, c to influence
-eg: sufffragettes commitment - hunger strike, civil rights movement speach consistent equality msg, LGBTQ rights = movement, strateogic comprimise (flexible) led to goal: same sex marrige - practically applied future
describe how social change occurs a01
- whole society not individuals
- minority influence process talk about
- obedience: gov (min) influence social change, laws - society change to avoid punishment (give eg)
- conformity: NSI (hard min isn’t norm but can spread) - compliance , ISI (information - accepts evidence)
- social crypto amnesia: extreme actions, mainstream accepts becomes norm, jail
strengths to social change theory full a03
- civil rights movement USA, c,c,f racial segregation for equality.
- non violent protests, marches. Suffered law enforcement
- commitment: white USA rethink beliefs, segregation - significant social change (voting right acts)
- understanding f,c,c has practical applications
- positive change: eg: gov understand how to change peoples behavior
- eat healthy, social distance in pandemic
- social change can applied real life sit - help economy by reducing healthcare costs
strength of zimbardo’s prison experiment
A03:
- Strength: research support, other studies - situational variables on obedience
Eg: Feild experiment NYC, leonard Bickman(1974), 3 confeds diff fits - MM, ST, SGU
individually asked tasks (give eg)
X2 likely obey SGU> ST
Support view, situational variables: uniform, powerful effect obedience, validity
weaknesses to social change theory full
- Barriers to social change - Bashir found that participants did not want to be associated with stereotypical minority groups, such as environmentalists. This reduces minority influence - shut them down and spoke in negative ways.
These barriers make minority influence less applicable in situations were social change is intended to be provoked.
