Social Influence

Question 1

Define: conformity

Answer 1

The tendency to change behaviour/attitude in order to fit in with other people, usually the majority.
The pressure to conform can be real or imagined.

Question 2

What are the 3 types of conformity?

Answer 2

Compliance
Identification
Internalisation

Question 3

Describe compliance

Answer 3

~Occurs when individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group to be accepted/avoid disapproval.
~Involves public (not private) acceptance of a groups behaviour/attitudes.
~Fairly weak/temporary form of conformity.
Eg. In a group of Man U fans, agreeing that Man U is better than Chelsea however secretly disagreeing.

Question 4

Describe identification

Answer 4

~Occurs when individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group because membership of that group is desirable.
~ Private and public acceptance.
~ Generally a temporary form of conformity, but stronger than compliance.
~Eg. When joining a football team, drinking afterwards but when no longer on the team stops drinking.

Question 5

Describe internalisation

Answer 5

~Occurs when individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group, not dependent on the presence of that group.
~Public and private acceptance.
~True/strong conformity.
~Eg. Converting religion after learning more about it.

Question 6

Define: informational social influence, as an explanation for conformity.

Answer 6

A form of influence where an individual looks to others for guidance in an unfamiliar situation, in order to be corrected/right. More likely in situations where others are experts (safe option), as the individual has a lack of knowledge.

Example: reading reviews before buying a product to help shape your thoughts.
[JENNESS]

Question 7

Define: normative social influence

Answer 7

A form of influence where an individual conforms to be liked and accepted by a group (fears exclusion). More likely to occur when individual believes they are under surveillance by the group.

Eg. Working in the fashion industry requires you to stay updated.
[ASCH]

Question 8

Evaluate the idea of conformity (normative and informational)

Answer 8

• Difficulty in distinguishing between compliance and internalisation, both are determined by how we measure public compliance and private acceptance, but these may change over time.
• Research to support normative influence - Schultz et al. Found that hotel guests exposed to the normative message that 75% of guests reused their towels each day rather than using new ones, reduced their own towel use by 25%.
• Research to support informational influence - Wittenbrink and Henley. Found that participants exposed to negative information about African Americans (which they were led to believe was the view of the majority) later reported more negative beliefs about a black individual.

Question 9

List the 5 situational factors affecting conformity

Answer 9

1. Size of group/majority (in Asch One Confederate, conformity was only 3%, but 3 confederates 33%).
2. Unanimity (same incorrect response conformity 33%, if one confederate went against everyone even the participant, dropped to 9%).
3. Task difficulty (correct answer becomes less obvious informational social influence takes over).
4. Group identity
5. Social norms

Question 10

List the 5 individual factors affecting conformity

Answer 10

1. Gender (women more likely to conform).
2. Mood
3. Personality (authoritarian, more obedient)
4. Culture
5. Private and public answers

Question 11

Outline and evaluate Jenness’ study (Informational social influence)

Answer 11

AIM: to see if the group discussion impacted an individuals judgement.
PROCEDURE: participants had to guess how many jellybeans there are in a jar - no obvious answer. They made individual private estimates of the number of jelly beans in a jar, then discussed their estimates in large groups/several smaller groups.
After discussion group estimates were created, participants then made a second individual private estimate.
FINDINGS: Second estimates converged to the group estimate. The average change of opinion was greater among females.
CONC: Judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions especially in unfamiliar situations as participants looked to one another on how to respond.
EVALUATION: Laboratory-based experiment (lacks ecological validity - demand characteristics), deception (ethical issues).

Question 12

Outline and evaluate Asch’ study (normative social influence)

Answer 12

AIM: to investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answers.
PROCEDURE: Lab experiment, 123 American male student volunteers were placed in groups with 7-9 others. They were told it was a study of visual perception, use of confederates. The task was to say which comparison line (a/b/c) was the same as the stimulus line (x) on 18 different trials, giving their answer last/last but one. Of these 12 were critical trials where Confederates gave identical wrong answers. There was also a control group of 36 participants who were tested individually on 20 trials to examine how accurate their judgements were.
FINDINGS: Control group had an error of only 0.04% (3 mistakes out of 720 trials) showing how obvious the correct answers were. On the 12 critical trials there was a 37% conformity rate to wrong answers. 75% of participants conformed to at least one wrong answer.
CONCLUSION: The judgements of participants were affected by majority opinions even when the majority was obviously wrong. Most participants conformed publicly but not privately.
EVALUATION: Cultural differences - ‘Child of its time’ because conformity was the social norm in 1950s America, therefore the study was reflective of the time. Use of students, lacks external/population validity and age bias. Gender bias, ethical issues - deception.
Study became a paradigm-the accepted way of conducting conformity research, lab experiment advantages.

Question 13

Define: Social roles

Answer 13

The parts individuals play as members of a social group, which meets the expectations of that situation.

Zimbardo tested this, dispositional hypothesis (factors such as personality affects social role) vs. situational (factors such as location setting affects social role).

Question 14

Outline and evaluate Haney et al’s prison study (SPE)

Answer 14

AIM: To investigate the dispositional and situational hypotheses and the extent to which people would conform to social roles.
PROCEDURE: 21 male volunteers selected from 75 male uni students who responded to newspaper ad (15$ a day). The 21 were rated the most physically/mentally stable without criminal tendencies. 10 were chosen randomly as guards and 11 were prisoners. Zimbardo played the role of the prison super intendant as well as the experimenter. Experiment was conducted in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford university (mock prison). Prisoners went through the same process as real prisoners to add realism to the study both roles wore uniform and the study was planned to run for two weeks.
FINDINGS: both groups settled quickly into their social roles. After the initial prison ‘rebellion’ dehumanisation increased and de-individuation. Guards became more abusive as prisoners became more submissive. After 36 hours one prisoner was released due to sets of crying/rage (3 more followed). The study was stopped after 6 days due to the extent of harm, prisoners were delighted at this decision whereas guards were upset. In later interviews both roles were surprised by their previous behaviour.
CONCLUSION: situational hypothesis is favoured over the dispositional hypothesis as none of the participants had ever shown such character traits before the study, it was the environment of the mock prison and social roles. Individuals conform readily to social roles demanded of a situation, even when these roles override an individuals moral beliefs.
EVALUATION: individual differences, not all guards behaved brutally nor prisoner behaviour identical. Guards chose how to behave, demand characteristics.
Several debriefing sessions carried out afterwards to lessen any long lasting effects such as emotional distress, some had to leave the study - was approved by Stanford ethics committee. Real world application - improved conditions of young offenders and Abu Ghraib.

Question 15

What did the guards and prisoners wear in the SPE?

Answer 15

Guards: khaki uniform and reflective sunglasses to avoid eye contact. (Handcuff/keys/truncheons).
Prisoners: numbered smocks to increase dehumanisation, stocking caps and ankle chain.

Question 16

Define: de-individualisation

Answer 16

A state in which individuals have lower self awareness and a weaker sense of personal responsibility for their actions. Can occur when part of a crowd.

Question 17

Define: dehumanisation

Answer 17

Degrading people by lessening their human worth, eg. Prisoners referenced by ID number instead of name.

Question 18

Define: Authoritarianism

Answer 18

An unquestioning belief in authority and an associated distrust/dislike of those who question/undermine authority.
Often understood to be a personality variable that differentiates people in terms in their belief in the importance and value of authority.

Question 19

Define: dispositional

Answer 19

Innate characteristics within the individual (e.g personality or temperament).

Question 20

Define: Situational

Answer 20

Environment or things external to the individual. (Eg. Location).

Question 21

Define: Obedience

Answer 21

Following an order or complying with the demands of an authority figure.

Question 22

Outline and evaluate Milgrams study of obedience (1963)

Answer 22

AIM: to test the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis and to see if individuals will go against one’s moral code to obey an authority figure.
PROCEDURE: 40 American males aged 20-50 responded to paper ad to volunteer for a study of memory and learning at Yale University psychology department. They were paid $4.50. A Confederate experimenter wearing a white lab coat (authority) introduced the participants to ‘Mr Wallace’ another Confederate and then issued roles (teacher or learner) randomly, which ensured participant was always the teacher. Explained that the learner had to answer questions given by the teacher, increasing shocks were given to wrong answers, prods were said to encourage teacher to go on.
FINDINGS: all participants went up to 300 V, 64% of participants were obedient - went up to 450 V (ranged from 15-450V). Only 14/40 participants didn’t continue after 300 V, resistance. Many participants showed distress (e.g. Sweating) some participants showed no signs of distress, concentrated on the task.
CONC: Germans are different hypothesis is false. High obedience of Americans suggest that obeying those in authority is normal behaviour.
EVAL: psychological harm was caused, informed consent-deception, lacks ecological validity, individual differences between participants affects statistic (eg. Gender), unrepresentative sample.
First proper experiment on obedience - the Milgram paradigm.

Question 23

Name 4 reasons for obedience in the Milgram study

Answer 23

1. Experiment took place at Yale- prestigious, credibility.
2. Participant thought that roles were allocated fairly, learner cannot feel aggrieved.
3. Being paid increased the sense of obligation.
4. Participants felt that the experiment was for a worthy purpose- to advance knowledge of learning process.

Question 24

What 3 situational variables were present in the Milgram study?

Answer 24

Proximity (where teacher learner sat).
Location.
Uniform.

Question 25

How did proximity affect the Milgram study?

Answer 25

When seated in the same room obedience levels fell by 40%.
In ‘touch proximity’ condition, obedience rate dropped by 30%, teacher was required to force learners hand on shock plate.

The closer you are to observe the consequences the less obedient. When people are able to detach from the consequences, obedience is higher.

Question 26

How did location affect the Milgram study?

Answer 26

When the study was carried out in a run-down office with no obvious affiliations to Yale university, obedience rates dropped, only 48% of participants went up to the max. level of shock. This is due to the less perceived legitimacy of authority figure.

Question 27

How did uniform affect the Milgram study?

Answer 27

Higher levels of obedience based on uniform, eg. White lab coat adds to perceived authority.

Bushman (1988), female assistant dress in police uniform asked people passing by to lend a stranger money for parking meter - obedience rate 72%, when dressed as a business woman 48%.

Question 28

Define: Agency theory (Milgram, 1974)

Answer 28

We are socialised from a young age to learn that obedience to rules is necessary for stability in society.

Question 29

Define: Agentic state

Answer 29

Milgram argued that in an obedience situation, people will pass all responsibility for their actions to the authority figure as they become de-individuated/want to be seen in a positive light. They will see themselves as an agent of the authority figure. Links to the agency theory.

Question 30

Define: Agentic shift

Answer 30

A change from an Autonomous state (personal responsibility over their actions) to an Agentic state (no personal responsibility over their own actions, given to authority figure), or vice versa.

Question 31

What is legitimacy of Authority?

Answer 31

People are socialised from an early age to accept a hierarchy of power which exists within society. Obedient individuals accept the power and status of authority figures to give orders as they are seen in charge (eg. Doctors with health).

Question 32

Give 3 evaluation points on the Agentic state

Answer 32

• Simplistic as people do not rapidly shift states, Staub (1989) and Lifton claim it is a gradual change over a long period of time.
• Not Agentic state, but rather people with sadistic impulses. As indicated by Stanford Prison Experiment, some participants offered to work as guards for extra shifts, without pay.
• Legitimacy of authority used to justify crimes - problem?

Question 33

Define: Authoritarian personality (the dispositional explanation for obedience)

Answer 33

A person who has extreme respect for authority and who is very obedient to those who have power over them. Believe that this personality is shaped in early childhood by parenting that’s focused on hierarchy. They may be hostile to those of a lower rank.

Question 34

Outline Adorno et al (1950)

Answer 34

Studied over 2000 American, white, middle class students.
Interviewed them on their political views, early childhood experiences and projective tests to understand individuals.
They found that children with strict parents (physical/harsh) were obedient.
They developed various scales to measure behaviour/attitudes, (ethnocentrism, anti-semitism, facism), including the f-scale.

Question 35

Define the Californian F-scale.

Evaluate it and Adorno et al.

Answer 35

A measure of authoritarian personality based on conventionalism (traditional beliefs), authoritarian aggression (punish criminals harshly?) and power/toughness (strong vs. weak).

• Suffers from response bias as it is worded in a conforming direction.
• Authoritarian individuals don’t always score high, suggests an error (Nazi war criminals only scored highly in 3/9 dimensions).
• Harsh parenting doesn’t always produce obedient children.
• Doesn’t explain why people are prejudice against certain groups and not others.
• Based on correlational research, cannot establish causal relationship.

Question 36

Outline the procedure, findings and evaluation of Elms and Milgram (1966)

Answer 36

• Follow up study using 40 participants from Milgrams shock experiment, 20 ‘obedient’ and 20 ‘defiant’ participants. Asked to complete the MMPI scale (measured a range of personality variables) and the Californian F-scale.
• Little difference found between the obedient and defiant on MMPI variables. Higher levels of authoritarianism among obedient whom reported being less close to their fathers during childhood/more likely described fathers in negative terms.
• Dispositional/situational factors could affect disobedience. Less educated are more likely to display authoritarian personality. Problems with F-scale.

Question 37

Define: Independent behaviour

Answer 37

Behaviour that seems not to be influenced by other people. This happens when a person resists the pressures to conform or obey (high internal LOC?).

Question 38

Define: dissident

Answer 38

A confederate that doesn’t conform.

Question 39

How does social support affect conformity/obedience? (As an explanation of resistance to social influence).

Answer 39

• The presence of a dissident gave the participant social support and made them feel more confident in their own decision/rejecting the majority, as they feel less like a minority.
• Social support also decreases obedience to authority which is shown in a variation of milgrams study. A Confederate was seen by a participant as refusing to administer shocks, obedience dropped to only 10%.

Question 40

Define: Rotter (1966) Locus of control, and how can it explain resistance to social influential

Answer 40

Refers to how much control a person feels they have in their own behaviour. A person can either have an internal locus of control or external locus of control.

An individual with a high internal locus of control can resist social influence. This is because they are more confident and self assured in their beliefs, and more aware of how their own actions affects them, therefore less likely to conform. Milgram investigated the backgrounds of the participants who were most resistant to his shock study, and found that they were assessed to have a high internal locus of control.

Question 41

Explain internal and external locus of control

Answer 41

INTERNAL: able to resist pressures to conform or obey. Take responsibility for their own actions. More self-confident/more achievement orientated. Higher intelligence and have less need for social approval. Leads to greater resistance to social influence.

EXTERNAL: Unable to resist pressure to conform. Feel that control is out of their hands, dependent on fate/luck. Less confident so seek other opinions.

Question 42

Define: majority influence

Answer 42

Fitting in with others around us. Maintains social order to keep things the way they are.

Question 43

Define: minority influence

Answer 43

Conversion process whereby the minority group adapt a consistent (arguments aren’t fragmented), committed (taken seriously) and flexible (more reasonable than dissident) approach to what they believe in.
Changes attitudes and behaviour over time, a strong and lasting form of conformity which leads to changes in belief.

Question 44

Outline Moscovici et Al (1969) Blue-green study

Answer 44

AIM: To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on majority.
PROCEDURE: Lab study involving 32 groups of 6 females, each group had 4 participants and 2 confederates. Shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud. In the first part of the experiment the 2 confederates answered green for all 36 slides, in the second part only green 24/36 slides (inconsistent).
RESULTS: In the first condition, the consistent minority had an affect on the majority (8%) compared to an inconsistent minority (1.25% said green). 32% of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once.
CONC: Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways (when consistent).
EVALUATION: Lab experiment lacks ecological validity. Only female students-gender bias, women are seen to be higher conformists due to how they are socialised. Real world application- can help to explain how terrorism radicalised people to join their cause through consistency.

Question 45

Define: social change

Answer 45

The process by which society changes beliefs, attitudes and behaviour to create new social norms (expected ways of behaviour and thinking).
Usually a gradual a process whereby minority influence wins the majority.

Question 46

Give an example of a positive and negative social change

Answer 46

Positive: the suffragettes
Negative: the Nazi’s

Question 47

Give 2 examples of current minority influences

Answer 47

• Greenpeace/Environmental campaigners.

* Acceptance of homosexuals in the UK.

Question 48

Evaluate social change

Answer 48

• Social change through minority influence is very gradual, not as fast as many think.
• Minorities aren’t as powerful as suggested as they often are seen as deviant/troublesome in the eyes of the majority.
• Not all social norms interventions have led to change. Example: DeJong (2006) students failed to lower alcohol consumption even after adverts.

Question 49

What is Moscovici (1980) process of social change via minority (Conversion theory)

Answer 49

1. Minorities draw attention to the issue
2. Minority create a cognitive conflict which gets majority thinking
3. Minority maintains consistency in terms of their position
4. Augmentation principle (minority are willing to suffer for their views)
5. Snowball effect (minority influence spreads)

Question 50

Define: Critical mass

Answer 50

The period in which the minority viewpoint becomes mainstream and the majority conforms through compliance. Permanent social change is achieved through internalisation. Obedience helps maintain social order.

Question 51

Define: social cryptomnesia

Answer 51

Refers to the idea that we tend to recall that change has taken place but tend to forget about the steps that brought it about, eg. rallies/sit-ins/riots/etc…

Question 52

Evaluate social support and LOC as an explanation for resistance to social influence

Answer 52

• Social support - Milgram was a lab study - participants knew they were being observed so gave rise to demand characteristics, also lacked ecological validity and suffered from gender bias.
• LOC - based on correlational research therefore cannot be certain of cause or effect, or that high internal LOC causes resistance. Maybe other personality variables are involved, 3rd variable.
• Real world application- external LOC is linked with depression/high rates of violent crime/mental health problems, use of improved CBT.

Question 53

Evaluate Moscovici’s conversion theory

Answer 53

Real world applications.
Supported by Moscovici’s study on minority influence.

Minority influence doesn’t always lead to social change, groups may seem deviant due to their beliefs or measures they take.