Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

paper 1 psychology > social influence > Flashcards

social influence Flashcards

1
Q

What is conformity?

A

Change in person’s behaviour or opinions due to real or imagined pressure from others.

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

What are the 3 ways people may conform to majority?

A

Internalisation
Identification
Compliance

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

What is internalisation?

A

Accept group norms
Private + public change
Long-term (attitudes internalised)

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

What is identification?

A

Publicly change to fit in
Privately disagree
Value group but not all its beliefs

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

What is compliance?

A

Outwardly go along
Privately disagree
Stops when group pressure stops

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

What is normative social influence?

A

Conform to be liked or accepted
Emotional process
Leads to compliance

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

What is informational social influence?

A

Conform to be right
Cognitive process
Leads to internalisation

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

When does NSI occur?

A

With strangers (fear rejection)
With friends (social approval)
Stressful situations (social support)

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

When does ISI occur?

A

New/crisis situations
Ambiguous tasks
When someone is seen as expert

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

Strengths of conformity explanations

A

ISI: Lucas et al — more conformity when tasks hard
NSI: Asch — avoided rejection

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

Limitations of conformity explanations

A

NSI doesn’t affect all equally (e.g. affiliation)
ISI + NSI can occur together (dissenter = unclear which)

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

Asch’s conformity study – procedure

A

Line judgment task
123 male US undergraduates
Group with 6–8 confederates
Confederates gave wrong answers 12/18 trials

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

Asch – findings

A

Naive ppts conformed 36.8% of the time
25% didn’t conform at all
75% conformed at least once

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

Asch – variations

A

Group size
Unanimity
Task difficulty

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

Unanimity variation

A

One confederate disagreed
Conformity dropped by 25%
Ppt felt freer to dissent

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

Group size variation

A

With 3 confederates: 31.8% conformity
More confederates = no further rise

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

Task difficulty variation

A

Harder line tasks = more conformity
ISI increased

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

Strengths of Asch

A

Lab setting = controlled
Cause and effect established

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

Limitations of Asch

A

Perrin & Spencer (UK): only 1 conform in 396 trials
Temporal bias (1950s America)
Demand characteristics (knew they were in study)
Gender + culture bias

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

Conformity to social roles

A

Individual adopts behaviour in a social situation

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

Social roles

A

Expectations attached to positions (e.g. teacher, parent)

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

Zimbardo SPE – procedure

A

Mock prison at Stanford
Volunteers randomly assigned guard/prisoner
Arrested at home, uniforms issued
Guards had sunglasses, rules, uniforms

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

Zimbardo SPE – findings

A

Guards took roles seriously, became brutal
Prisoners rebelled, became passive
Study stopped after 6 days

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

Zimbardo SPE – conclusion

A

Power of the situation shapes behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Zimbardo – strengths
Controlled allocation of roles 90% prisoner convos about prison life
26
Zimbardo – limitations
Demand characteristics (play acting) Not all guards were brutal (1/3 only) Exaggerated situational power
27
Obedience definition
Direct order from authority figure is followed
28
Milgram’s study – sample
40 US men, 20–50 yrs Recruited via ads Paid $4.50
29
Milgram – procedure
Yale University Participant = teacher, confederate = learner Shocks from 15–450v Learner screamed at 300v, silent after Experimenter gave prods
30
Milgram – findings
65% went to 450v 12.5% stopped at 300v Signs of stress (sweat, nail-biting)
31
Milgram – strengths
Supporting study: shocks to puppies (Sheridan/King) Hofling: real-world doctor/nurse obedience
32
Milgram – limitations
Lacked realism (some doubted shocks) Ethical issues: deception, stress
33
Situational variables
Proximity, location, uniform
34
Proximity variation
Same room as learner = 40% obedience
35
Location variation
Run-down building = 47.5% obedience
36
Uniform variation
Casual clothes = 20% obedience
37
Strengths – situational variables
NYC field experiment: guard obeyed more than civilian Cross-cultural support (e.g. Spain) Controlled one variable at a time
38
Limitations – situational variables
Low internal validity (some ppts suspicious) Culture bias (mostly Western studies)
39
Social-psychological explanations
Agentic state Legitimacy of authority
40
Agentic state
Acts on behalf of authority Feels less personal responsibility
41
Autonomous state
Acts on own values Feels responsible
42
Agentic shift
Switch from autonomy to agency
43
When agentic shift occurs
Authority seen as legitimate Social hierarchy
44
Binding factors
Justify actions (e.g., shift blame to victim)
45
Legitimacy of authority
Social hierarchy leads us to obey power
46
Destructive authority
Authority orders harmful acts (e.g. Milgram’s prods)
47
Strengths – social psych explanations
Blame attributed to experimenter in Milgram video Cultural differences in obedience (Germany 85%, Australia 16%)
48
Limitations – social psych explanations
Agentic state can’t explain Hofling (nurses showed no anxiety)
49
Dispositional explanation
Authoritarian personality
50
Authoritarian personality
Obedient, respect authority, dislike lower status
51
Adorno’s procedure
2000 US middle-class F-scale to measure authoritarian traits
52
Adorno’s findings
High scorers respected authority Had stereotypes + rigid views
53
Authoritarian origin
Harsh parenting (strict, critical) Displaced hostility
54
Strengths – authoritarian personality
Obedient ppts scored higher on F-scale
55
Limitations – authoritarian personality
Correlation ≠ causation (education may cause both) Can’t explain Nazi Germany (too widespread)
56
Resistance to social influence
Ability to resist conformity/obedience
57
Social support – conformity
Asch: dissenter reduced conformity
58
Social support – obedience
Milgram: disobedient peer → 10% obedience
59
Locus of control (LOC)
Belief about control over life
60
Internal LOC
Responsible for own actions More resistance to pressure
61
External LOC
Controlled by luck, outside forces
62
LOC + resistance
Internals more likely to resist social pressure
63
Strengths – LOC
Holland replicated Milgram: internals resisted more
64
Limitations – LOC
Contradictory: people now more resistant but more external LOC overstated (doesn’t apply in familiar settings)
65
Minority influence
Small group persuades majority
66
Minority leads to
Internalisation
67
Moscovici – procedure
6 people view blue/green slides 2 confederates gave wrong answers
68
Moscovici – findings
Consistent minority = 8.4% agreement Inconsistent = 1.25%
69
Minority influence factors
Consistency Commitment Flexibility
70
Consistency
Same message over time
71
Commitment
Sacrifices show seriousness (augmentation principle)
72
Flexibility
Adaptable arguments = more persuasive
73
Snowball effect
Minority → majority influence
74
Strengths – minority influence
Moscovici: consistent > inconsistent Deeper processing support
75
Limitations – minority influence
Artificial tasks (e.g. coloured slides)
76
Social change
Society adopts new norms/behaviours
77
Minority influence → social change
Draw attention Consistency Deeper processing Augmentation Snowball effect Social cryptomnesia
78
Conformity + social change
NSI (e.g. “most people save energy”) Asch variation: dissent spreads
79
Obedience + social change
Zimbardo: gradual commitment
80
Strength – social change
Nolan (energy usage messages reduced use)
81
Limitation – social change
Limited real-world evidence Change is slow and rare

paper 1 psychology (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions