Social Influence Flashcards
Describe and evaluate Informational Social Influence and Normative Social Influence as an explanation for conformity.
A01
Internalisation: When a person genuinely accepts the group norms. This results in a private as well as a public change of opinions. Change is permanent.
Identification: There is something about that group we value and so we conform to their behaviours. You act a certain way with that group (e.g. harry potter fans) but then act differently with other friends. Publicly change behaviour and opinions. Change isn’t permanent.
Compliance: Simply going along with others in public but privately don’t. Not permanent.
ISI is about who has the better information
Used in situations that are ambiguous
Used when someone wants to be right
Crisis situations or when it is a new situation
Cognitive process
NSI is about what is normal or typical behaviour of a group
To gain social approval
Emotional process
Occur in situations with strangers when we want to gain social approval.
Stressful situation
A03
Research support for ISI:
Lucas et al and mathematical problems - There was greater conformity for when the questions were difficult rather than when they were easy.
This was more true for students who rated their mathematical abilities as poor.
Shows that people conform in situations where they are unsure - this is the outcome predicted by the theory.
Individual differences in NSI:
NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour.
nAffiliators - people who are more concerned about being liked.
McGhee and Teevan found that students high with affiliation conform more.
The desire to be liked underlines conformity for some people more than others.
Individual differences in the way people respond.
Research support for NSI:
Asch found that many of his ppts went along with a clearly wrong answer just because other people did.
Conformity of 36.8%.
Some ppts said they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.
When ppts wrote down their answers, conformity fell to 12.5%.
ISI and NSI work together:
More than often, both processes are involved.
Conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting ppt in Asch’s study.
This dissenter may reduce the power of NSI because they provide social support, or may reduce the power of ISI because there is an alternative source of info.
Isn’t always possible to be sure what processes are at work.
This casts serious doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently in conforming behaviour.
Describe and evaluate Asch’s research into conformity
A01
Procedure:
Asch showed participants 2 cards, one with 1 line and 1 with 3 comparison lines The participants were in a room with 6 confederates who all agreed on the wrong answer 123 undergraduate American males 18 trials 12 critical trials 36.8% gave a wrong answer 25% of participants did not conform 75% conformed at least once Conformed to avoid NSI/rejection.
Asch’s variations:
Group size:
Found that with 3 confederates conformity to the answer rose to 31.8% but the addition of further confederates made little difference.
A small majority is not enough for influence to be exerted but, at the other extreme, there is no need for a majority of more than 3.
Unanimity:
Introduced a confederate who did not agree with the group.
The presence of this conformity meant that conformity dropped by 9%.
It enabled naïve ppt to behave more independently.
Task difficulty:
Conformity increased when the lines were more similar in length.
Suggests that ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder as the situation is more ambiguous.
A03
A child of it’s time:
Perrin and Spencer - repeated studies with engineering students in the UK in 1980.
1950s America were a very conformist time
Limitation because the Asch effect is not consistent over different situations or time and so is not a fundamental feature of human behaviour
Gender differences - men more conformist because of army setting.
Limited application of findings:
Only men were tested
Women may be more conformist because they are more worried about social approval
USA = individualist culture
Collectivist cultures = higher conformity rates
Findings aren’t easy to generalise
Artificial situation and task:
May simply have gone along with the demands of the situation - demand characteristics.
There was no reason not to conform.
This group doesn’t represent everyday groups as they were all strangers.
Findings aren’t generalizable to everyday.
This is true when the consequences of conformity might be more important.
Discuss research into conformity of social roles
A01
Zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment:
Describe the procedure -> participants were randomly assigned to guard or prisoner; guards were given free reign over the prisoners
Very high conformity to their roles
Prisoners rebelled against guards
Guards were sometimes very violent towards the prisoners
This shows that the situation can influence conformity to a role
Even volunteers like the priest found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison.
A03
Control:
Random assignment to rule out individual differences
Their behaviour must have been due to the situational influences
High internal validity and so more confident in drawing conclusions the influence of roles on behaviour
Lack of realism:
Banuazi - Participants were merely play-acting
Performance was based on their stereotypes
Explains why prisoners rioted as that’s what they thought real prisoners did.
90% of participants’ conversations were about prison life
One prisoner expressed the opinion that it was a real prison but run by psychologists instead of the government.
It seems the situation was real to the participants
Lack of research support:
Reicher and Haslam’s partial replication of SPE - the BBC prison study.
Their findings were very different to those of Zimbardo - it was the prisoners who eventually took over the mock prison and subjected the guards to harassment and disobedience.
Used social identity theory to explain this.
Guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but prisoners did.
They refused to accept the limits of their assigned roles as prisoners.
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience
A01
Describe the procedure of Milgram’s experiment
Findings:
12.5% stopped at 300V
65% carried onto 450V
Observations: extreme anxiety; sweat and tremble
A03
Low internal validity:
It was argued that ppts didn’t really believe in the process and so they behaved in that way; not testing what he wanted to test.
Gina Perry - listened to tapes of the experiment and heard that many ppts expressed their doubts about the shocks.
Sheridan and KIng - conducted similar study with a puppy but ppts could see the puppy. 100% of females delivered the fatal shock.
Suggests effects in study were genuine because people behaved the same way with real shocks.
High external validity:
About the relationship between the experimenter and the participant - reflects wider authority relationships.
Hofling et al - studied nurses and found high levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors.
Suggests that processes of obedience to authority that occurred in the study can be generalised to other situations.
Alternative explanation - SIT:
The key to obedience lies in group identification.
In study, ppts identified with experimenter - science of the study.
When obedience levels fell, this was because ppts identified less with the science or more with the victim.
Haslam and Reicher - studied how each ppt reacted to each of the prods used.
The first 3 prods applied to the science of the study.
The 4th prod demanded obedience and when that was used, ppts quit.
This shows that another theory can be used to explain obedience.
Milgram provided situational explanations for obedience. describe and evaluate 2 situational variables that have been shown by Milgram to affect obedience to authority.
A01
Location:
Conducted a variation in a run down building instead of Yale university
Situation where experimenter had less authority
Obedience fell to 47.5%
Uniform:
In one variation the experimenter was substituted by the member of public
Didn’t wear a lab coat.
Obedience dropped to 20%
A03
Research support:
Bickman -> 3 confederates in 3 different outfits (milkman, Jacket and tie, security guard)
confederates asked passers by to perform tasks
Obedience levels were double for the security guard
Supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of the wearer and is likely to produce obedience
Cross-cultural replications:
Miranda et al -> 90% obedience rates for Spanish students
suggests Milgram’s conclusions are not limited to American males
Smith and Bond -> most replications have taken place in Western, developed societies
Not culturally different from America
Premature to assume that Milgram’s replications apply to everyone
Lack of internal validity:
Many ppts worked out that the experiment was fake.
May have figured this out because of the extra manipulation of Milgram’s variations.
Situations were very contrived.
This is a limitation of all the studies because it is unclear whether the results are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because ppts saw through the deception and acted accordingly.
Outline and evaluate the Agentic state as an explanation for obedience.
A01
An agent acts for someone else
An agent experiences extreme anxiety because they know what they are doing is wrong but feel powerless to disobey
Autonomous state -> to be independent and free
When a person shifts from autonomy to agency = agentic shift
Happens when someone perceives someone else as a figure of authority -> higher position in social hierarchy
Buffers -> aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and so reduces the moral strain.
shifting responsibility to the victim.
Denying the damage they were doing to the victim.
A03
Research support:
Blass and Schmitt - showed a film of Milgram’s study and asked students who they thought was responsible.
Students blamed experimenter.
Students indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority and expert authority.
A limited explanation:
Doesn’t explain why some participants did not obey
Doesn’t explain findings from Hofling’s study as the nurses did not experience anxiety
Agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
One limitation is that the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of agentic shift
Mandel -> An incident involving German police battalion - men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland
Despite the fact that they had other options and were not explicitly told to shoot civilians
Outline and evaluate legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience.
A01
Society recognises some people as having more authority
This means we give up some of our independence
A consequence is that some people have the power to punish others
We learn acceptance of this authority during our childhood
Destructive authority:
Figures of authority can often use their powers for destructive purposes
Destructive authority was clearly shown in Milgram’s experiment when the experimenter used prods
participants behaved against their consciousness
A03
Cultural differences:
Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people obey authority
Kilham and Mann -> replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia
Only 16% went to 450V
Mantell -> Germany - 85%
Shows that some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate
Increase the validity of the explanation
Research support
Blass and Schmitt - showed a film of Milgram’s exp to a group of students
Students blamed the experimenter because of legitimate authority and expert authority
recognised this as the cause of obedience
Real-life crimes of obedience:
Can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes.
Helps to explain how the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army.
Discuss the Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.
A01
Adorno -> F-scale
People with Authoritarian leanings identified with ‘strong people’ and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’
Positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice
Characteristics = Especially obedient to authority, respect and submissiveness to it, contempt for people in an inferior status, believe we need strong powerful leaders, inflexible in their outlook
Origins = forms in childhood as a result oh harsh parenting
Parent’s love is conditional on how the child behaves
The child’s fears are displaced onto weaker people = scapegoating
Psychodynamic explanation
A03
Research support:
Milgram and Elms conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient ppts who scored highly on F-scale.
May be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality.
Link is merely a correlation.
Makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience.
There could be a third factor involved. -lower level of education.
Limited explanation:
Pre-war Germany, many people displayed obedient, racist and anti-sematic views despite the fact they all differ in personality
Seems unlikely that they all possess an authoritarian personality
Limitation: it is clear that an alternative explanation is much more realistic
Social identity- German people identified with Nazi state and scapegoated the Jews
Methodological problems:
Every item is worded in the same ‘direction
When you reverse the question on F-scale, fascists are no longer fascist
Shows acquiescence bias as table is only measuring the tendency to agree to everything
Adorno interviewed participants after knowing their test scored -> investigator bias
Describe and evaluate 2 explanations of resistance to social influence.
A01
Social support for conformity and obedience:
Pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other non-conforming people
Example: Asch’s variation - participant has a dissented in the room
The fact that someone is not following the majority allows a person to be free to follow their conscience
if dissenter starts conforming so does participant
Locus of control:
Internals = Believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves (High LOC)
Externals = Believe things happen without their own control (Low LOC)
There is a continuum with high internal LOC and High external LOC
Internals are more likely to resist pressures as they take responsibility for their actions
Internals are more self-confident and achievement orientated
A03
Research support - resistance to obedience:
Gamson et al -> help an oil company run a smear campaign
Participants were in groups
88% of the groups of participants rebelled
This is because they had the chance to discuss and not everyone conformed
Contradictory research for LOC:
Although there is research support for LOC by Holland who found that 37% of internals didn’t continue to the highest shock level in Milgram’s study, there is also contradictory evidence.
Twenge et al -> analysed data from AMerican obedience studies over 40 years
Found that people have become more resistant to obedient but more external
Not what would be expected
Challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour (however, there may be other explanations)
Limited role of LOC:
It only comes into play in novel situations
Little influence on our behaviour in familiar situations
People who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, no matter what their LOC is.
Describe and evaluate research into minority influence.
A01
Minority influence is most likely to lead to internalisation.
Consistency:
Synchronic consistency - when people in the minority are all saying the same thing
diachronic consistency - when they have been saying the same thing for a ling time
Consistency makes people start to rethink their own views
Commitment:
engaging in extreme activities to gain the attention of other people
These activities have to put the minority at risk
Flexibility:
They have to be willing to compromise
Being rigid and unchanging is off-putting to the majority.
Need to be prepared to adapt and accept reasonable counter-arguments.
The process of change:
If you hear something new that you don’t necessarily agree with, you are more likely to stop and listen.
Deeper processing is important in the process of conversion.
The more people change their opinions, the faster the rate of conversion.
Snowball effect. Minority are now the majority.
A03
Research support for consistency:
Moscovici et al -> 36 green-blue slides -> consistent minority saying that the slides were green, conformity rose.
Wood et al -> meta-analysis of 100 similar studies. Found that a consistent minority were most influential
Research support for depth of thought:
Martin et al -> gave ppts a certain message
One group heard it from a minority and the other group from a majority
The message from the minority had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect
Limited real-world applications:
Real life situations are much more complicated than just being able to state whether there is a majority or minority.
Discuss the role of social influence processes in social change.
A01
Steps in how minority influence creates social change:
Drawing attention Consistency Deeper processing Augmentation principle Snowball effect Social cryptoamnesia
Lessons from conformity research:
Asch and his dissenting participant - broke the power of the majority encouraging others to dissent.
Such dissent has the power to lead to social change.
Environmental and health campaigns increasingly exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI
Provide infor about what other people are doing
Lessons from obedience research:
Milgram clearly demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models
Obedience can be used to create social change by the process of gradual commitment
Once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one
A02
Research support for normative influences:
Nolan et al -> investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption
Put posters on people’s doors. One group had posters saying that others in the neighbourhood were reducing their energy consumption.
Found significant reduction in energy consumption in the first group
Strength: shows that conformity can lead to social change through NSI
Minority influence is only indirectly effective:
Social changes happen slowly
Charlan Nemeth -> influences are indirect because the majority is influenced on matters only related to the issue at hand
The effects may not be seen for some time
Limitation: minority influence effects are fragile and its role in social influence is very limited
Social cryptoamnesia may be necessary
Barriers to social change:
Bashir- investigated why people often resist social change.
Researchers found that their ppts were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways so as not to be stereotyped.
Researchers advise that minority groups to avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes because this will be off putting to the majority.
Stereotypes are a social barrier that prevent the influence of the minority.
This is not accounted for in the theory.
