Social Influence

Question 1

explain compliance

Answer 1

compliance= going along with the group to gain approval, however, the person doesn’t change their internal belief or practice those beliefs in private

Question 2

explain internalisation

Answer 2

internalisation=going along with the group because you trust them, accept beliefs publically as well as privatly

Question 3

explain identification

Answer 3

identification=person accepts beliefs publically and privately, like internalisation, BUT they don’t actually believe in the practices, they just want to be accepted

Question 4

explain normative social influence

Answer 4

NSI=person accepts beliefs as human are scared of rejection and crave companionship, accepts belief but it doesn’t endure. Adopting a behaviour they don’t believe in to be accepted

Question 5

explain informational social influence

Answer 5

ISI=person accepts beliefs because they desire to be right and they view the group’s beliefs to be truthful

Question 6

evaluate the different types of conformity

Answer 6

.Difficult to distinguish between compliance and internalisation- e.g. person may not accept beliefs in private so you would think its compliance, however, the person may forget to accept them in private etc. It depends on how we define public compliance and private acceptance
.Research into NSI-US government has shown the relationship between people’s normative beliefs and their chance of taking up smoking, found if kids were exposed to the message that most of their peer group don’t smoke, would influence them not to smoke. Also helped with conservation, towels in hotels
.Research into ISI- found that exposure to negative views about African American, they then reported more negative views about black people

Question 7

explain Asch’s study

Answer 7

KEY STUDY- Asch (line study)
.123 male US students, 1 real ps and 5 Confederates
.Confederates gave incorrect answers 12/18 times, the “critical trials”
.Av conformity rate was 33%

Question 8

variables affecting conformity

Answer 8

GROUP SIZE- little conformity in 1-2 confederates but 3 jumped to 30%, anything over didn’t make a difference
UNANIMITY OF THE MAJORITY- compliance was high if all confederates gave the wrong answer, but if there was one dissenter, compliance lowered to just 5%.
DIFFICULTY OF TASK- in one variation, Asch made the difference between lines smaller (harder) and compliance became harder, depending on the self-efficiency level.

Question 9

evaluate variables affecting conformity

Answer 9

.Low temporal validity- 50s USA, anti-communist period
.Effect on group size- didn’t go over 9, so there’s no data about larger group effect of conformity
.Independent behaviour rather than conformity- 2/3 still stuck to their original answer
.Uconvincing confederates- Moria and Arai overcame this by putting polarising spectacles on them
.Cultural difference in conformity- conformity rates in non-western, collectisit cultures, like Africa, South-America were higher at 37%

Question 10

evaluate conformity to social roles (Haney and Zimbardo)

Answer 10

.Conformity is not automatic- some guards were good
.Demand characteristics- people guessed the purpose
.Was the study ethical
.Relevence to Abu Ghraib
.What we have learned- RWA

Question 11

explain Milgram’s study

Answer 11

.40 participants
.26 went to 450 volts, even though it was labelled xxx
.All participants went to 300g

Question 12

situational varibales affecting obediance

Answer 12

PROXIMITY- when teacher and learner were in the same room, obedience fell to 40% and when the teacher had to force the hand onto the plate, it fell to 30%.
LOCATION-the first study was done at Yale, to test whether location had an effect Milgram did it again in a run down office. participants said Yale gave it integrity so they were more likely to obey, but obedience barely fell in the office.
POWER OF UNIFORM-Bushman, policeman (72%), business (48%)and beggar (52%)

Question 13

evaluate situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 13

.Ethical issues-“prods” took away right to withdraw
.Lack of realism- when leader screamed and the experimenter didn’t respond, the ps realised it wasn’t real
.Gender-found no difference in conformity level even though women are expected to have high levels
.External validity-Poland mass murder of Jews, officers carried out awful atrocities because of obeying their authority, even though he said they didn’t have to
.Historical validity- someone replicated the study 50 years later and found similar levels, Blass

Question 14

define agentic state

Answer 14

moving from an autonomous state to agentic means the person no longer sees themselves sin control of their actions, and they start to feel like an “agent” carrying out an order. the person may feel like they are letting the person down or being impolite if they refuse to do the action. they don’t feel responsible because they are not in control

Question 15

define legitimacy of authority

Answer 15

to be in an agentic state, the person you are obeying must have legitimate authority and social perceived control. A person expects there to be someone in charge, the experimenter fills that role, so they trust them to define the studies menaing etc.

Question 16

evaluate the agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Answer 16

.Agentic state vs real life obedience- Milgram suggests we switch back autonomous state to agentic, but this doesn’t explain the gradual traditions e.g.doctors in Auschwitz
.Agentic state or just plain cruel- some people may have tendencies for sadism, there was no legitimacy of authority in the Stanford Prison Experiment, yet the guards still did awful things
.Legitmacy of authority vs real life obedience- this could justify the harm of others, worrying
. Loss of personal control- some suggest the agentic state only occurs if the person feels out of control, it doesn’t automatically happen.
.RWA- Cockpit- in aeroplane accident, there was found an excessive dependence of the captain word and authority, one said he said nothing even when he saw the captain making a risky decision

Question 17

outline the authoritarian personality

Answer 17

AP- personality pattern, strict adherence to conventional values and believes in absolute submission. Rigid thinkers, black and white moral code

Question 18

outline the F-Scale

Answer 18

F=fascist

the scale contained statements, agreeing with them was indicative of AP personality

Question 19

outline right wing authoritarian

Answer 19

conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, submission, there was a correlation found between right wing authoritarian scores and willingness to administer shocks

Question 20

Elms and Milgram’s study

Answer 20

participant had previously been in Milgram’s study, they selected 20 obedient ones and 20 defiant one. They found higher levels of authoritarianism among those considered obedient

Question 21

evaluate the authoritarian personality

Answer 21

.Were the shocks real- some of the studies may have suffered from faults as some of the participants might have known the shocks weren’t real, to test this, someone replicated it only with a recording of the learner and the teacher were told, they still reacted the same way
.Social context-Milgram showed that rather than differences in personality, it was differences in context, proximity etc
.Difference between authoritarian + obedience- Elms and Milgram asked participants about their upbringing, ps said they had good relationships with their parents, different from the typical expectation that they would have had an authoritarian upbringing
.Left wing have low levels of obedience- fake game show, fake electric shocks

Question 22

resistant to social influence

Answer 22

.social support- an ally/dissenter lowered obedience from 33% to 5%
.Resisting obedience- a disobedient peer acts as a model, in one variation of Milgram’s, there were 3 teachers, 2 of them were confederates, obedience dropped considerably
.Locus of control- high internal locus=we control our lives and our actions, high external= we are affected by external factors
. Internality and resistance to social influence- high internals= active seekers of information and won’t rely on opinions of others and achievement orientated

Question 23

evaluate resistance to social influence

Answer 23

.Response order- one condition the Confederate answered right 1st and then another condition they answered right 4th, 1st was better as it got initial commitment
.Support doesn’t have to be valid- one Confederate answered differently, still lowered obedience
.Locus of control is related to normative social influence but not informational- found signif correlation between LOC and a predisposition to normative SI
.RWA- German soldiers kept 2000 jews, woman gathered to get them, shows social support helped stand against authority
.People are more external than before- teens show higher levels of belief in fate and shit like that

Question 24

minority influence

Answer 24

consistency
commitment
flexibility

Question 25

Moscovici’s study into minority influence

Answer 25

.the green/blue study- 4 naive ps and 2 Confederates
.the consistent style, the Confederates consistently called the blue “green”. in the inconsistent one they only said “green” in 2/5 of the trials. the consistent style influenced the majority more, the inconsistent had no change

Question 26

evaluate minority influence

Answer 26

.Support for flexibility- jury
.Value of minority influence- opens their mind
.Tipping point- people were exposed to a minority view, their positions began to shift
.Do the minority influence the majority, or does the majority lead the minority to change their opinion and think freely and there view it in a minority

Question 27

social influence processes in social change

Answer 27

.Drawing attention
.Cognitive conflict
.Consistancy
.Augmentation principle
.Snowball effect

Question 28

evaluate social influence processes in social change

Answer 28

.Gradual-usually maintain status quo rather than quickly change as we have seen in history, like the abolition of the slave trade
.Deviant stereotype- people want to avoid being known as breaking the rules,
.Limtitation of the social norms approach- not always work, although it may work in small instances like smoking in high school, the idea of drinking driving still big on college campus