Social Influence Flashcards
Nail (1986)
When people show normative social influence their private views are not affected.
Linkenbach and Perkins (2003)
If told that the majority of their peers didn’t smoke, teenagers were less likely to take up smoking.
Schultz et al. (2008)
Hotel guests increased their reuse of towels by 25% if told that 75% of hotel guests did this.
Wittenbrink and Henley (1996)
When exposed to negative majority information about African Americans, participants were more likely report negative beliefs about this group.
Fein et al. (2007)
The reaction of fellow viewers heavily influenced how participants perceived US presidential candidates.
Nolan et al. (2008)
People didn’t realise that it was the views of neighbours that influenced their energy conservation.
Laughlin (1999)
Majorities exert more influence over social, rather than physical, matters.
Campbell and Fairey (1989)
Subjective judgments are influenced heavily by large majorities whereas objective judgments often need a majority of only 2 or 3.
Lucas et al. (2006)
Difficulty of the task (Asch design) depends on the self-efficacy of the individual; an internal perspective on how able they are.
Perrin and Spencer (1980)
Tested the Asch design on students and then youths on probation. The latter conformed, the former did not and so the cost of dissenting is a big factor.
Bond (2005)
Little research into majorities larger than 4 has been conducted so we know very little about the influence of large majorities.
Mori and Arai (2010)
(Asch design) Participants wore glasses with different lenses so that no confederates were needed, reducing demand characteristics. They found similar conformity to Asch.
Smith et al. (2006)
Average conformity (in Asch designs) across diffferent cultures was 31%. Europe/USA = 25% Africa/Asia/South America = 37%
Markus and Kitayama (1991)
Conformity is viewed more favourably in collectivist cultures. That’s why it is more common.
Reicher and Haslam (2006)
BBC Prison Study: Participants did not conform to social roles as they had done with Zimbardo in 1973.
Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975)
Zimbardo’s findings are the result of demand characteristics.
Bushman (1988)
Obedience (giving change) was highest when the confederate dressed in a ‘police-style’ uniform (72%) as opposed to as a beggar (52%) or a businesswoman (48%).
Orne and Holland (1968)
Participants distrust psychologists. The cool distance of the observer in Milgram’s study was a demand characteristic and showed that the shocks were fake.
Perry (2012)
Many of Milgram’s participants thought the shocks were fake; these were the men who delivered the fatal shocks.
Eagly (1978)
There is an assumption that women are more obedient. (Milgram actually found obedience to be the same for both sexes).
Blass (1999)
Found no gender difference in obedience and no difference in obedience levels between 1961 and 1985.
Mandel (1998)
Milgram’s work does not apply to real-life examples of obedience to authority (example of Reserve Police Battalion 101).
Burger (2009)
Found obedience levels similar to those of Milgram’s.
Lifton (1986)
Agentic state does not explain Nazi doctors working at Auschwitz.
Staub (1989)
Carrying out evil acts over time is what changes a person, not an agentic shift.
Fennis and Aarts (2012)
Agentic state applies to reduction of personal control and is relevant to social influences and bystander apathy.
Tarnow (2000)
The US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) found that ‘lack of monitoring’ was the biggest cause of aeroplane crashes. Co-pilots were unlikely to question captains.
Adorno et al.
Created the F (fascist) scale to measure authoritarianism and found parenting to be the primary cause.
Altemeyer (1981)
Found that participants who scored highly for right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were more obedient in a Milgram design.
Dambrun and Vatiné (2010)
Used ‘virtual environment’ to remove demand characteristics. Found that participants who scored highly for right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were more obedient in a Milgram design.
Milgram (1974)
Dispositional authoritarianism does not account for changes in obedience caused by situational variations.
Middendorp and Meloen (1990)
Less-educated people are more authoritarian than better-educated people.
Bègue et al. (2014)
Those two the left of the political spectrum are less obedient.
Spector (1982)
High internal locus of control = better leadership, goal-orientation and persuasion.
Hutchins and Estey (1978)
High internal locus of control = greater ability to resist coercion.
Allen and Levine (1969)
Response order is important for social support, earlier support is more effective than later support.
Allen and Levine (1971)
Social support needs to be ‘valid’, coming from a valid source.
Spector (1983)
Locus of control is important for resisting normative social influence but not informational social influence.
Twenge et al. (2004)
External locus of control is becoming more common (in Americans) over time.
Avtgis (1998)
Those with an external locus of control are easily persuaded, socially influenced and are more conformist than those with an internal locus of control.
Nemeth et al. (2010)
A consistent minority shows confidence that their view is valid; therefore is more effective.
Wood et al. (1994)
Minorities which are especially consistent are very effective.
Mugny (1982)
Flexibility and negotiation is more important than consistency for a minority. They lack power and so must compromise.
Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987)
Inflexible minorities are unsuccessful.
Nemeth (2010)
Minority groups stimulate creativity and thoughtfulness. but people do not like them. The majority marginalises and mocks the deviant view as it threatens the homogeneity of the group.
Van Dyne and Saavedra (1996)
Exposure to minority groups improves decision making skills.
Mackie (1987)
Majorities stimulate more thought and processing than minorities, because they are more important.
Xie et al. (2011)
A minority as big as 10% of a group is needed to convert the majority and make their views accepted (the tipping point).
Perkins and Berkowitz (1986)
Social norms approach: if people think a behaviour is the norm, they will take alter their behaviour to fit in.
Dejong et al. (2009)
‘Social norms interventions’ do not always work. Although told that responsible drinking was the norm, students continued to drink heavily.
Schultz et al. (2007)
Boomerang effect: people who already perform desired behaviour engage in undesirable behaviour upon being part of a social norm intervention.
