Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology - Paper 1 > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

What types of conformity are there?

A
  • Internalisation.
  • Identification.
  • Compliance.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is internalisation?

A

Genuinely accepting group norms.

  • Private and public change.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is identification?

A

When we identify with a groups values –> fitting into social roles.

  • Public (maybe private) change.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is compliance?

A

‘Going along with others’.

  • Conformity stops when group pressure seizes.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What explanations for conformity are there?

A
  • Informational social influence (ISI).

- Normative social influence (NSI).

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

What is ISI?

A

Desire to be RIGHT.

  • Ambiguous situations.
  • Unsure of the answer - look to others.
  • Fits internalisation - accept what the group tells you.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is NSI?

A

Desire to be LIKED.

  • Behaving like others to avoid rejection.
  • Familiar and unfamiliar situations.
  • Fits compliance - go along with others to avoid disapproval.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the evaluation points for ISI?

A
  1. Research support.

2. Individual differences.

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

What research support is there for ISI?

A

Lucas et al. (2006) –> studied students on maths questions.

  • More conformity as the questions got harder - showing that we look to others when we don’t know the answer.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What individual differences are there in ISI?

A
  1. Perrin + Spencer (1980) –> found engineering students to be less conformist.
  2. Arch (1955) –> found students were less conformist - knowledgeable people are more likely to know the answer.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the evaluation points for NSI?

A
  1. Research support.

2. Individual differences.

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

What research support is there for NSI?

A

Asch (1951) –> participants felt self-conscious if they didn’t conform (gave the right answer).

  • Conformity fell to 12.5% when participants wrote their answers down.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the individual differences for NSI?

A

McGhee + Teevan (1967) –> found nAffiliators (people who care more about being liked) were more likely to conform.

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

When was Asch’s study of conformity?

A

1951.

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

How many participants were in Asch’s study?

A

123 American male students.

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

How many confederates was each participant with?

A

Individually tested in groups of 6-8 confederates.

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

How many trials were there in Asch’s study?

A

18

-12 of which were CRITICAL –> confederates gave the wrong answer.

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

What did the participants have to do?

A

Identify the length of a standard line, by comparing it to 3 comparison lines - one of which was the correct length.

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

What did Asch find?

A
  1. Naive P. Gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.
  2. 25% never conformed, so 75% conformed at least once.
  3. Conformity was a result of NSI.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

When did Asch conduct his variable study?

A

1955.

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

What were Asch’s variables affecting conformity?

A
  1. Group size = varied 1-15 confederates.
  2. Dissenting confederate = truthful confederate.
  3. Difficulty of task = similarity between comparison lines.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What were Asch’s findings of his variables?

A
  1. Group size = conformity peaked at 3 confederates.
  2. Dissenting confederate = reduced conformity (P. Could behave independently).
  3. Task difficulty = conformity increased when tasks got more difficult (ISI).
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What are the evaluation points of Asch’s study?

A
  1. ‘Child of it’s time’.
  2. Situation and task were artificial.
  3. Cultural bias.
  4. Findings only apply to certain situations.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Why is Asch’s study a ‘child of it’s time’?

A

Perrin + Spencer (1980) –> found 1 in 396 uk engineering students conformed - 1950 was a conformist time.

  • ‘Asch effect’ wasn’t consisted over time.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

How was Asch’s tasks and situations artificial?

A
  1. Lab experiment - wasn’t natural (demand characteristics).

2. Trivial tasks - tasks didn’t reflect real life, there was no reason not to conform.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What gender bias is there in Asch’s study?

A

ONLY men were tested.

  • Neto = said women might be more conformist as they care more about social relationships.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How was Asch’s study culturally biased?

A

P. Were for the USA (Individualistic culture).

  • Smith + Bond = suggested conformity rates are higher in collectivist culture which are more concerned with group needs.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Why does Asch’s findings only apply to certain situations?

A
  • Williams + Sogon (1984) = found conformity was higher when the majority were friends rather than strangers –> Asch effect varies depending on circumstances.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

When was Zimbardo’s SPE?

A

1973.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Where did Zimbardo conduct his study?

A

Mock prison in the basement of Stanford University.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

How many participants were in Zimbardo’s study?

A

24 - ‘emotionally stable’, male students.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

How were Zimbardo’s participants assigned to their roles?

A

RANDOMLY.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

How did Zimbardo increase realism in his procedures?

A

Prisoners were;

  • Arrested at their homes.
  • Blindfolded.
  • Strip-searched.
  • Deloused.
  • Issued a uniform number.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What was Zimbardo’s procedures?

A
  1. Prisoners = had to follow heavy daily routines, always referred to by ID.
  2. Guards = had their own uniform, including a baton, handcuffs, keys are mirrored shades (de-individuation).

Guards had complete power (Decide whether prison can go to the toilet).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What did Zimbardo find?

A
  1. Prisoners rebelled = after this, they became subdued and depressed
  2. 1 prisoner went on a hunger strike - guards attempted to force-feed him
  3. Guards became increasingly brutal and aggressive.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

How many days did it take for the prisoners to rebel?

A

2 –> after constant harassment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How many participants were released early?

A

3 –> due to psychological disturbances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

How many days did it take for the study to be stopped?

A

6 days, instead of the planned 8.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What were Zimbardo’s conclusions?

A
  1. All conformed to their social roles.
  2. Revealed the power of the situation of people’s behaviour.
  3. The more the guards identified with their role, the more brutal they became.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What are the evaluation points of Zimbardo’s SPE?

A

:) Control over variables (High internal validity).
:( Lack of realism.
:( Understated disposition all influences.
:( Unethical.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

How did Zimbardo’s study have high internal validity?

A
  1. Emotionally stable P. randomly allocated to their roles.

2. High control over the variables (conducted in a lab setting).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

How did Zimbardo’s SPE lack realism?

A

Banuazizi + Mohavedi (1975) = suggested P. were ‘play acting’ (demand characteristics) - one guard based his role on a character form ‘Cool Hand Luke’.

  • However, Zimbardo’s data shows 90% of convos were about prison life.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

How did Zimbardo understate dispositional influences in behaviour?

A

Fromm (1973) = found only 1/3 of guards were brutal.

  • Guards behaved differently in the same situation, so their disposition was an important factor that Zimbardo ignored.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

How was Zimbardo’s SPE unethical?

A
  1. Zimbardo was superintendent and researcher (researcher bias).
    - When a P. wanted to leave, he only cared about his prison rather than his responsibilities as a researcher.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

When did Milgram conduct his experiment of obedience?

A

1963.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What was Milgram’s aim?

A

To understand the dispositional explanation of obedience in Nazi Germany.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

How many participants were in Milgram’s study?

A

40 male, aged 20-50.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What were the different roles in Milgram’s study?

A
  • Teacher = participant.
  • Learner = confederate (Mr Wallace).
  • Experimenter = wore a lab coat.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What was the role of the teacher?

A

Give the learner an increasingly severe electric ‘shock’ each time he made a mistake on a task (learning word pairs).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

What was the range of shocks in Milgram’s study?

A

15v ——> 450v (‘danger - sever shock’).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

At 300v, what did the learner do?

A

Pound on the wall and gave no response to the next question.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What did the teacher have to do if the learner didn’t give a response to the question?

A

Proceed with the electric ‘shock’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What did the experimenter do when the teacher felt unsure about continuing?

A

He used a sequence of 4 standard prods.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What were the prods used?

A
  1. ‘Please continue’.
  2. ‘The experiment requires that you continue’.
  3. ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’.
  4. ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

What did Milgram find?

A
  1. No one stopped below 300v.
  2. 12.5% stopped at 300v.
  3. 65% went to 450v.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Were Milgram’s participants debriefed?

A

Yes, to assume that their behaviour was normal.

  • 84% said they were glad they took part.
  • 74% said they felt they learned something.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

What evaluation points are there for Milgram’s study?

A

:) Good external validity.
:) Replications support his findings.
:( Lacks internal validity.
:( Ethical issues.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

How does Milgram’s study have good external validity?

A

Holfling et al. (1966) - found 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands from doctors - showing Milgram’s study can be generalised.

59
Q

What replications are there for Milgram’s study?

A

French Documentary = 80% of contestants gave shocks up to 450v to an apparently unconscious man.

  • There behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants.
60
Q

How does Milgram’s study lack internal validity?

A

Orne + Holland (1968) - says participants guessed the shocks were fake.

  • However, Milgram says that 70% of participants believed the shocks were genuine.
61
Q

How was Milgram’s study unethical?

A
  • Deceit = thought they were randomly assigned, even though it was rigged.
  • Psychological disturbances = some participants showed sings of trauma.
62
Q

What explanations for obedience are there, based on situational variables?

A
  1. Proximity = how close the teacher + learner were.
  2. Location = where the study was conducted.
  3. Uniform = Whether the experimenter was wearing a lab coat or not.
63
Q

Who carried out these situational variables for explaining obedience?

A

Milgram.

64
Q

Why did Milgram carry out his variations?

A

To consider whether the influence of the situation might increase/decrease obedience.

65
Q

What were Milgram’s findings of his variables?

A
  1. Proximity - (a) same room = 40%, (b) telephone instructions = 20.5%.
  2. Location - run-down building = 47.5%.
  3. Uniform - experimenter wearing everyday clothes = 20%.
66
Q

What did Milgram conclude about his variations?

A

That both dispositional and situational variables influence obedience.

67
Q

What are the evaluation points for Milgram’s situational variables of obedience?

A 
\:) Research support.
\:) Replicated in other countries.
\:) High control of variables.
\:( May lack internal validity.
\:( His conclusions provide an 'obedience alibi'.
68
Q

What research support is there for Milgram’s uniform variable?

A

Bickman (1974) = confederate wore different uniforms in New York field experiment - asked passers-by for a coin for the meter.

  • 2x more likely to obey the ‘security guard’.
69
Q

How is Milgram’s variables replicated in different countries?

A

Miranda et al. (1981) = found over 90% obedience in Spanish students - Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to America.

  • However, Smith and Bond say these replications have taken place in the West, countries culturally similar to the USA.
70
Q

How does MIlgram’s research have high control of variables?

A

He systematically altered one variable at a time to test effects on obedience.

71
Q

How does Milgram’s research lack internal validity?

A

Orne + Holland (1968) = P were more likely to realise the procedures were fake in his variations because of the extra experimental manipulation (demand characteristics).

72
Q

How does Milgram’s conclusions provide an ‘obedience alibi’?

A

Suggests that obedience isn’t the person, its the situation.

  • Mandel (1998) = says this is offensive to Holocaust survivors by saying Nazis simply obeyed orders and were victims of situational factors beyond their control.
73
Q

What are the 2 social-psychological explanations of obediences?

A

1) Agentic state.

2) Legitimacy of authority.

74
Q

What is the agentic state?

A

Feeling no personal responsibility for their actions.

  • Acting as an ‘agent’ for someone.
75
Q

What is the autonomous state?

A

The opposite of agentic state = someone is independent/free.

  • They behave according to their own principles and feels responsibility for their actions.
76
Q

What is the agentic shift, and when does it occur?

A

1) Shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’.
2) Occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure and they have power over us due to the social hierarchy (e.g. police)

77
Q

What are binding factors?

A

These are aspects of the situation that allow the individual to ignore their damaging behaviour.

  • e.g. shifting responsibility onto someone else.
78
Q

What is legitimacy of authority?

A
  • We obey people at the top of the social hierarchy.
  • The authority they hold is legitimate as its agreed in society.
  • e.g. police officers –> everyone agrees on their power and is obedient to them.
79
Q

Why do we ‘hand control over to authority figures’?

A

Due to our childhood experiences, we learn to trust people to exercise their authority appropriately.

80
Q

How can legitimacy of authority lead to destructive behaviour?

A

Because that person is perceived as trustworthy, however, this power can lead to them being cruel, callous and dangerous.

81
Q

What are the evaluations of the agentic state?

A

:) Research support for agentic state.
:( Agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
:( Agentic state cannot account for the behaviour of the Nazis.

82
Q

What research support is there for the agentic state?

A

Bless and Schmidt (2001) = showed students a video of Milgram’s study –> they said the experimenter was responsible, not the teacher.

  • This was due to legitimacy of authority (experimenter was at the top social hierarchy), and the students recognised it.
83
Q

Why does the agentic shift not explain many of the research findings?

A
  • Some participants didn’t obey.
  • Hofling et al. = the nurses should have felt anxious as they knew their behaviour was destructive.
  • Agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
84
Q

Why cant the agentic state explain the behaviour of the Nazis?

A

Mass murder without orders (all the time), and some didn’t feel anxious about their destructive behaviour.

85
Q

What are the evaluations of legitimacy of authority?

A

:) Useful account of cultural differences.

:) Can explain real-life obedience.

86
Q

How does legitimacy of authority explain obedience in different cultures?

A

Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some countries;

-e.g. 16% of Australians went to 450v, but 85% of Germans did.

87
Q

How can legitimacy of authority explain real-life obedience?

A
  • My Lia = can be explained by the hierarchy of the US army –> soldiers assumed the orders given by their superiors to be legal (destructive behaviour).
88
Q

What is the dispositional explanations of obedience?

A

1) The authoritarian personality.

89
Q

Who developed the authoritarian personality explanation of obedience?

A

Adorno et al. (1950) = wanted to understand the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust.

90
Q

What are the characteristics of the authoritarian personality?

A
  • They are especially obedient to authority.
  • Have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness.
  • Express contempt for people of inferior social status.
  • Have conventional attitudes towards race and gender.
91
Q

When does the authoritarian personality form?

A

In childhood through harsh parenting;

  • extreme discipline.
  • impossibly high standards.
  • severe criticism from parents.
  • conditional love.
92
Q

How does harsh parenting lead to the authoritarian personality?

A

This leads to resentment, so they scapegoat it on inferiors whom seem weaker (psychodynamic approach).

93
Q

When was Adorno’s study?

A

1950.

94
Q

What did Adorno’s study investigate?

A

Unconscious attitudes towards ethnic groups of more than 2000 m/c white Americans.

95
Q

What is the F-scale?

A

One of the scales that Adorno developed, it measured potential fascism.

96
Q

What did Adorno find?

A
  • Authoritarians (scored high on scales) identified with strong people and looked down on the ‘weak’ - conscious of social status’.
  • Had fixed and distinct stereotypes about other groups.
97
Q

What are the evaluations of Adorno’s dispositional explanation?

A

:) Support that links it to obedience.
:( Explanation is limited.
:( F-scale is potentially biased.
:( Flawed methodology.

98
Q

What support is there that links the authoritarian personality and obedience?

A

Elms and Milgram (1966) = interviewed people whom scored high on the F-scale, they were fully obedient.

  • However, this is just a correlation, and the authoritarian personality may be caused by poor education (Hyman and Sheatsley).
99
Q

How is the authoritarian personality explanation limited?

A

Millions of people in Germany were anti-semistic, but didn’t all display the same behaviour - unlikely that everyone had an authoritarian personality.

100
Q

How is the F-scale potentially biased?

A

Christie and Jahoda (1954) = say the F-scale is politically biased because it measures tendencies towards the right-wing ideology, not left-wing (e.g. Chinese Maoism).

101
Q

How is the methodology Adorno used flawed?

A
  • Greenstein (1969) = says the F-scale just measures tendencies to agree on things.
  • The researchers knew the participants scored high on the F-scale when they interviewed them, and they also knew the studies hypothesis.
102
Q

What are the 2 explanations of resistance to social influence?

A

1) Social support.

2) Locus of control (LOC).

103
Q

How is conformity reduced by social support?

A
  • Pressure to conform is reduced if others aren’t conforming.
  • Asch showed that if the dissenting peer starts conforming again, so does the naive participant.
104
Q

How is obedience reduced by social support?

A
  • If another person disobey’s, pressure to obey is reduced.
  • independent behaviour went from 35% to 90% in the disobedient peer condition (Milgram).
  • Even if participants don’t follow the disobedient peer, they are more ‘free’.
105
Q

Who developed the locus of control explanation?

A

Rotter (1966) = describes internal versus external.

106
Q

What is internal LOC?

A
  • Place control on themselves; believe things that happen to them are controlled by themselves.
  • e.g. doing well in exams is because they work hard.
107
Q

What is external LOC?

A
  • Place control outside themselves; believe things happen outside of their control.
  • e.g. if they fail an exam they blame it on the teacher, not themselves.
108
Q

What is a ‘continuum’ in explaining LOC?

A

People differ in how they explain success and failure.

  • There is high internal/externals, and low internals/externals.
109
Q

Which LOC show greater resistance to social influence?

A

Internals = if they take personal responsibility, they are more likely to base decisions on their own beliefs, not other peoples.

  • People with high internal LOC are more self-confident, intelligent and less need for social approval = greater resistance.
110
Q

What are the evaluations of social support?

A

:) Research support for the role of dissenting peers in conformity.
:) Research support for the role of dissenting peers in obedience.

111
Q

What research support is there for the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity?

A

Allen and Levine (1971) = independence increased with a dissenter in an Asch-like study (even if they said they had problems judging the lines)

  • Resistance is motivated by feeling ‘free’, not what someone else says.
112
Q

What research support is there for the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience?

A

Garson et al. (1982) = found higher levels of rebellion (independent behaviour) in a group.

  • Shows that peer support is linked to greater resistance.
113
Q

What evaluations are there for LOC?

A

:) Research support that links LOC and resistance to obedience.
:( Not all research supports the link between LOC and resistance.

114
Q

What research support is there that links LOC to resistance to obedience?

A

Holland (1967) = repeated Milgram’s study and found 37% of internals didn’t go to 450v, but only 23% of externals didn’t.

  • Supports that internals have greater resistance.
115
Q

What research doesn’t link LOC to resistance?

A

Twenge et al. (2004) = analysed American LOC studies over 40 years and found that people have become more resistant, but more external. We would expect people to have become more internal.

116
Q

How does a minority change the opinions of others?

A

Through internalisation = public and private beliefs are changed, and this is done by 3 processes.

117
Q

What are the 3 processes involved in the minority influencing the majority?

A

1) Consistency.
2) Commitment.
3) Flexibility.

118
Q

How does consistency affect minority influence?

A

Consistency makes others rethink their own views (“maybe they’ve got a point if they all think this way”).

119
Q

What are the 2 types of consistency used by the minority?

A
  1. Synchronic consistency = people in the minority are all saying the same thing.
  2. Diachronic consistency = they’ve been saying the same thing for a long time.
120
Q

How does commitment affect minority influence?

A

Helps gain attention (e.g. through extreme activities).

  • Augmentation principle = majority pay even more attention (“wow, he must really believe in what he’s saying”).
121
Q

How does flexibility affect minority influence?

A

Nemeth (1986) = consistency can appear rigid and off-putting, minority need to accept reasonable counter-arguments and balance consistency and flexibility.

122
Q

What is the snowball effect?

A

The minority become the majority.

  • Over time, people ‘convert’ to the minority, the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion; gradually, the minority become the majority and social change occurs.
123
Q

What is the study that supports this theory of minority influence?

A

Moscovici et al. (1969) = the blue-green slides.

124
Q

What was Moscovici et al.’s procedures?

A

Group of 6 people viewed a set of 36 blue-green coloured slides –> they had to state whether the slide was blue or green.

125
Q

What were the 3 conditions in Moscovici’s study?

A

1) Confederate CONSISTENTLY said the slides were green.
2) Confederates were inconsistent about the colour.
3) A control group –> no confederates.

126
Q

What was Moscovici’s findings?

A

1) Consistent condition = participants gave the same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials.
2) Inconsistent trial = agreement fell to 1.25%.
3) Control group = participants wrongly identified 0.25% of the time.

127
Q

What does Moscoviv’s study show?

A

That the consistent minority groups influenced the majority to agree on the incorrect answer. Shows that consistency of the minority can influence the majority.

128
Q

What evaluations are there of minority influence?

A

:) Research evidence for consistency.
:) Research supports the involvement of internalisation in minority influences.
:( Research often involves artificial tasks.
:( Application is limited.

129
Q

What research evidence is there that demonstrates the importance of consistency?

A

1) Moscovici et al. = shows consistency of the minority is more effective than inconsistency.
- This confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.

130
Q

What research supports the involvement of internalisation in minority influence?

A

Moscovici varied his experiment = got participants to write their answers down.

  • Agreement with minority was greater = internalisation took place.
131
Q

How does research into minority influence often involve artificial tasks?

A

Moscovivi’s tasks don’t represent those in real life (e.g. like equality campaigns which can be life/death situations).

  • Findings of studies therefore, lack external validity as they cant be generalised to real-life situations.
132
Q

How is application of minority influence research limited?

A

Minority influence research rarely reflects the complex dynamics of the distinctions between majority and minority in real-life (majority is usually more powerful, minority is usually more close knit).

133
Q

What lessons from minority influence research is there?

A

Civil rights marches drew attention to segregation in America in the 1950s.

134
Q

How did the civil rights marches reflect minority influence research?

A

1) They were consistent, even though they were a minority.
2) Drew deeper thinking = people started thinking about equality.
3) Augmentation principle = ‘freedom riders’ received beatings for challenging seat separation on buses (commitment).

135
Q

How did civil rights activists gradually induce a snowball effect?

A

MLK got the attention of the government –> Civil Rights Act passed in 1964.

  • Minority became the majority.
136
Q

What is social cryptomnesia?

A

People remembering that a change happened, but not remembering how. Some people have no memory of the Civil rights movement for social change in America, but know that segregation doesn’t exist anymore.

137
Q

What lessons from conformity research for social change is there?

A

Asch variation = dissenters make social change more likely.

  • Social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what others do = environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI.
138
Q

What lessons from obedience research for social change is there?

A

1) Milgram variation = disobedient models make change more likely.
2) Zimbardo (2007) = once a small instruction is obeyed, its hard to resist a bigger one - people ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour.

139
Q

What are the evaluations of social influence and social change?

A

:) Research support for the role of NSI in social change.
:( Minority influence is only indirectly effective in creating social change.
:( Identification is overlooked in minority influence research.
:( Methodological issues in research.

140
Q

What research support is there for the role of NSI in social change?

A

Nolan et al. (1986) = hung messages on peoples doors saying most residents are reducing energy use.

  • Significant decreases in energy use when compared to a control group who saw a message to save energy with no reference to other peoples behaviour.
141
Q

How is minority influence only indirectly effective in creating social change?

A

Nemeth (1986) = effects of minority influence are indirect and delayed.

  • e.g. took decades for attitudes towards drink-driving and smoking to shift - majority influenced by matters related to the central issue, and it took some time to see the effects of smoking.
142
Q

How is identification overlooked in minority influence research?

A

Minorities wanting social change should avoid behaviours that the majority view as off-putting (ie, people are less likely to be environmentally friendly because they don’t the label of “environmentalists”).

143
Q

What methodological issues are their in this area of research?

A

Moscovici, Asch and Milgram all use artificial tasks and settings in their studies, giving them low external validity.

Psychology - Paper 1 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions