Social Influence

Question 1

Zimbardo Conclusion and Evaluation

Answer 1

Guards and prisoners adopted social roles quickly - our social role can influence our behaviour.
+ good control - lab study
- low ecological val (can’t generalise)
- incentives, deception, volunteer sample, right of withdrawl

Question 2

Haslam and Reicher (2006) BBC Prison Study

Answer 2

Repeat Zimbardo study
15 males
Daily tests to measure levels of depression, compliance with rules and stress
The results didn’t support Z as guards didn’t like authority - participants didn’t fit into social roles, roles are flexible?
Demand characteristics - knew they were on TV
Good ethics, offered counselling afters

Question 3

Study for conformity to social rules?

Answer 3

Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment
18 male normal participants, 6 days
Guards and prisoners
Results:
Guards asserted authority and prisoners resisted together
Guards gave nastier punishments and prisoners became passive and obedient
Experiment abandoned early as prisoner became distressed

Question 4

Types of conformity

Answer 4

Compliance
Identification
Internalisation

Question 5

What is compliance?

Answer 5

Adjust behaviour to be accepted in a group
Private views stay same
Public opinions and behaviour change

Left group - go back to original

Question 6

What is identification?

Answer 6

Change public and private views to be a member of a group

Once leave group permanently, they’ll adopt new behaviours

Question 7

What is internalisation?

Answer 7

True conformity

Change public and private views permanently
Does not depend upon group membership
E.g. Religion

Question 8

Explanations of conformity

Answer 8

Informational social influence - desire to be right

Normative social influence - desire to be liked

Question 9

Study for informational social influence

Answer 9

Jenness (1932)
Participants guess privately
Participants discuss as group
Group prediction made
Participants make a second prediction privately

Second prediction converged to group prediction

Question 10

Study for Normative Social Influence?

Answer 10

Asch (1951)
123 Male undergraduate participants with 6 other actors
Correct answers were always obvious
Actual participant answered last
In 12 of 18 trials actors answered wrong
In the 12 trials there was a 32% conformity rate to wrong answer
Quantitative data

Question 11

Evaluating studies

Answer 11

G eneralisability
R eliability
A pplication
V alidity
E thics
S ample

Question 12

Asch variations

Answer 12

Group size: 32% conformity rate (One actor - 3% conformity)
Unanimity: 5 actors in agreement, 1 actor correct - 6%
Task difficulty: made lines more similar - increased

Question 13

Explanations for obedience study

Answer 13

Milgram (1961)
Yale University - wanted to explain Holocaust
40 men
Volunteer sample (newspaper advert)
Participant - teacher / confederate - learner
Participant taught leaner word pairs, wrong answer = shock, increases after every wrong answer
300v - learner pounded wall, no more response
Experimenter said continue

Question 14

Results of Milgram (1961)

Answer 14

68% to 450v
100% to 300v

Every participant showed sign of distress/not wanting to continue

Question 15

Study for situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 15

Bickman (1974) 
Asked to pick up litter in NY by actor as a: 
Milkman - 14%
Civilian - 19%
Security guard - 38%
Good ecological val
Real behaviour - don't know in study 
Opportunity sampling - unrepresentative

Question 16

Obedient Nurses Study

Answer 16

Hofling et al (1966)

21/22 went to deliver drug after unknown doctor tang to tell them to.

Question 17

Explanations for Obedience

Answer 17

The agentic shift

Legitimacy of authority

Question 18

Situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 18

Proximity (Milgram learner moved to same room as participant)
Location (Milgram’s study repeated in Bridgeport)
Uniforms (Bickman)

Question 19

Dispositional variables affecting obedience

Answer 19

The authoritarian personality explanation

Question 20

What is the Agentic Shift?

Answer 20

Move from working autonomously to acting as someone’s agent - not taking responsibility of actions.

Milgram variation: instructions down telephone, obedience from 68% to 20%

Question 21

Milgram variations

Answer 21

Original - 68%
Telephone - 20%
Location (Bridgeport, market research) - 47%
Proximity - 30%
Social support (two actors refused to carry on) - 10%

Question 22

Milgram and Elms (1966)

Answer 22

Did Milgram’s study then gave participants the F-scale questionnaire.
Highly obedient - higher f-scale score than those who disobeyed.

Question 23

The Authoritarian Personality

Answer 23

Adorno et al (1950)
Over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly.
Argued strict parenting also results in prejudice -
Child feels constrained = aggression, child is afraid to show aggression to parents as discipline so hostile to others they see as weaker, usually minor groups.

Question 24

2 psychological reasons people do not conform or obey

Answer 24

Finding social support

Having an internal locus of control

Question 25

Research support for social support

Answer 25

Asch (1956)
Put in a dissenter (always disagrees with majority)
Conformity dropped from 32% to 5.5%

Question 26

Locus of Control study

Answer 26

Rotter (1996)
External LoC - believe what happens to them is due to external factors (luck/fate)
Internal - what happens is as a result of their own behaviour.

Question 27

Studies linking to LoC and Independent Behaviour

Answer 27

Shute (1975)
Tested for loc by questionnaire, put in groups of people who are conservative of drug laws, participants with internal loc conformed less.
Schurz (1985)
Milgram’s study but ultrasound not shocks, loc test beforehand.
Little diff between int/ext, but int felt more guilty after.

Question 28

3 factors to encourage minority influence

Answer 28

Consistency - moscovivi
Commitment - rosa parks sat on white bus (arrested)
Flexibility (nemeth 1986)

Question 29

Minority Influence study

Moscovici

Answer 29

Investigate consistency
2 confederates 4 real participants
Shown 36 slides of clearly diff shades of blue, asked to say colour
Confederates said all green (first part) then 24 blue and 12 green (2nd part)
Part 1: consistent - 8.42% Inconsistent - 1.25%
Minorities must be consistent to influence

Question 30

Flexibility Study

Answer 30

Nemeth (1986)
Groups of 3 participants and 1 confederate had to decide how much compensation to pay victim of a ski-lift accident.
Confederate not flexible with low amount - no effect on majority
Confederate offer slightly higher - majority went lower

Question 31

Why do people yield to minority influence?

Answer 31

Group membership-Normative social
Consistency-Informational social influence
The snowball effect-Resisting obedience
Having an internal LoC-The agentic shift
Minority has shown sacrifice-Resisting conformity
Obedience to authority

Question 32

Evaluation of Milgram (1961)

Answer 32

G - no urgent reason to follow orders, Nazi fighting for country
Low ecological and temporal val
R - follow up studies found similar results, unethical to repeat study as deceiving participants and not let them finish, many know study.
A - people now know not to follow orders if harmful.
V - demand characteristics, many participants didn’t believe it could be a real study
E - some psychological and physical harm, no right to withdraw (prompts), didn’t consent to actual experiment, deception