social influence Flashcards
define conformity
person changes behaviour, attitudes or beliefs to be in line with the majority, due to pressure (real or imagined)
Define compliance
Person addressed behaviour and views which they expressed in public to be in line with the majority
But private views don’t change
Therefore it is superficial and temporary
Define internalisation
Person adjusts behaviour and views which are expressed in public to be in line with the majority
Then examine their own views and accept the majority’s point of view (privately and publicly)
It is deeper and permanent
Define identification
Person accepts social influence as they want to be associated with another group or person to feel more part of the group
Normative social influence
people have fundamental need to be liked
Avoid behaviour that causes rejection
Copy behaviour of others to fit in
Effective strategy to ensure acceptance
What does normative social influence lead to
Compliance
Informational social influence
People have need to be confident that their beliefs are correct
Make objective test against reality
Rely on opinions of others
Happens when situation is ambiguous
What does informational social influence lead to
Internalisation
Positive evaluation of social influence (4)
+smoking
+Jury
+African-Americans
+Maths
Negative evaluation of social influence (2)
- Culture
- individual differences
what was Asch’s experiment
Naive participant in a group of Confederates
Look at ‘standard line’ and choose which of the other three ‘test lines’ were the same length
Give response out loud one at a time (naive participant = last or second last)
How many times did the Confederates gave the wrong answer in Asch’s experiment
12/18 trials
What was the chance of a genuine mistake in Asch’s experiment
1%
What were the result of Asch’s experiment
33% = incorrect responses 75% = conformed in at least 1/18 trials 5% = conformed on every trial 25% = did not conform
Why did people conform in Asch’s experiment
To avoid disapproval (normative social influence)
What was the effect of group size on conformity rates
1 = 3%
2= 13%
3+ = 32%
(doesn’t change significantly after this)
what was that affect of task difficulty on Asch’s experiment
The more difficult the task, the greater the informational social influence and the conformity
Was it affect of unanimity on Asch’s experiment
unanimous group = conformity increases
Presence of one Confederate going against the majority (Conformity from 33% to 5%)
When Confederate gave wrong answer (conformity from 33% to 9%)
Positive evaluation of Asch’s experiment (3)
+ jury
+smoking
+laboratory experiment
Negative evaluation of Asch’s experiment (3)
- Mundane realism/ecological validity
- gender
- time period (engineering students)
Define social roles
Behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a social position or status
explains Zimbardo’s experiment
Create a stimulated prison in the basement of the University
24 emotionally/psychologically stable young men were randomly assigned role of guard or a prisoner
guards = complete control
prisoners = confined to cells
guards told to maintain order by any means necessary (except physical violence)
What happened on day two in the prison
The prisoners tried to rebel by barricading themselves in the cells
guards sprayed them with co2, stripped them naked, took away their beds and forced the ringleaders into solitary confinement
What happened after the prison rebellion
The guards became increasingly cruel and aggressive
Prisoners became passive and depressed as guards used verbal abuse
How long did Zimbardo’s experiment last and why
Six days (was meant to be two weeks) Due to concerns about the psychological health of the prisoners were showing signs of severe distress
Positive evaluation of Zimbardo’s experiment (1)
+ Abu Ghraib (role of guard influenced behaviour of soldiers)
Negative evaluation of Zimbardo’s experiment (5)
- unethical ( prisoners subjected to psychological harm and 5 had to be released early due to extreme reactions)
- prison warden (zimbardo became too involved and lost his objectivity. had to be told by colleague to end experiment so validity can be questioned)
- demand characteristics (guards thought experimenters wanted them to behave aggressively)
- individual differences (some guards were reluctant to be cruel so this determines which people conform)
- male students (all but one were white, young males so it was an unrepresentative sample)
Define obedience
Behaving as instructed to by an authority figure
How did Milgram get participants for the experiment
Placed advert in newspaper asking for male participants
40 participants were invited to Yale university and met by experimenter (man in white lab coat who was a Confederate)
What were participants told in Milgram’s experiment
Introduced to Mr Wallace (Confederate) who pretended to have a weak heart
Mr Wallace and participants were asked to pick up notes detect determine rolls but it was set up so Mr Wallace was always a learner
Participant was told to punish the learner if they made mistakes on a memory test by giving an electric shock and increasing the voltage each time
What happened in Milgram’s experiment
Learner was hooked up to the electric shock machine for joining room to the teacher and experimenter
The machine and controls were fake but very convincing
Voltage starts at 15 votes and increases by 15 to 450
each group of switches were labelled “slight shock“ to “danger” to “XXX”
What did Mr Wallace do in the experiment
As the shocks became more severe Mr Wallace demanded to be released from the experiment, screamed, kicked the wall, complained about his heart, refused to answer the questions and finally went silent
What did the experimenter say to the teacher
Prompted them to continue:
“please continue”
“the experiment requires you to continue”
“it is absolutely essential that you continue”
“You have no choice, you must continue”
Results of Milgram’s experiment
All participants gave shocks up to 300 V
65% gave shocks up to the maximum 450 V
Participants felt high levels of stress and showed symptoms of sweating, trembling, hysterical laughter
Despite this most were breeding and willing to inflict lethal shocks
Positive evaluation of Milgram’s experiment (3)
+ nurses (nurses got calls from unknown doctor asking to give drugs to patient (broke rules as it was twice the maximum dose, was given over the phone, doctor was unknown and medicine wasn’t on stock list) but 95% carried it out)
+ puppy (asked to give real (but unbeknownst to them small) shocks to puppy. 75% did even when watching puppy squeal in pain)
+ laboratory (well controlled and extraneous variables didn’t affect validity)
negative evaluation of Milgram‘s experiment (3)
- Consent (participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment so did not give informed consent and were led to believe shocks were real)
- psychological harm (participants became extremely distressed)
- right to withdraw (several asked to leave but told they weren’t allowed)
effects of proximity on obedience
in the proximity variation (same room) = 40%
In the touch proximity variation (force arm down) = 30%
In the absent experimenter variation (left room and gave orders by phone) = 21%
What case disputes validity of Milgram’s findings
Reserve Police Battalion were told to take a large group of Jews out of a Polish village and shoot them
Members were given chance to say no and be assigned other duties but few did and the massacre went ahead
Effects of location on obedience
In the alternative setting variation (rundown office and experimental wearing casual clothes) = 48%
Participants said location of Yale university give confidence in the integrity of the people involved
Effect of uniform on obedience
Uniforms are easily recognisable symbols of power and status
Alternative setting experimenter didn’t wear a lab coat and the rate was 48%
Experimentt showing effects of uniform
Asked Confederates to order passerby’s to pick up some litter or move away from the bus stop
Guard uniform = 90% obeyed
civilian = 50% obeyed
What are the two situational explanations of obedience
Agentic state
Legitimate authority
What is agentic state
People obey horrific orders because of the situation they are in
People go into an agentic state and lose their autonomy
Perceive themselves as an instrument of the authority figure and don’t follow their conscience
What is the agentic shift
Believe that the authority figure is responsible for their actions
People think that authority figures are usually trustworthy
Orders seem reasonable and become more aggressive (gradual commitment)
People cannot see consequences of their actions (buffers)
Why do people adopt an agentic state
To maintain a positive self image
They think they are not responsible for actions so doesn’t matter what negative behaviour they show
They stay in it because they worry that breaking the commitment to the authority figure would be arrogant and rude
What is agentic state necessary
For hierarchies to function in society and prevent chaos
Obedience is necessary for society to function
(submitting to teachers, parents, police)
Positive evaluation of agentic state (2)
+ Proximity in Milgram’s experiment (less buffers so were less likely to shock when they could see him as they couldn’t deny responsibility)
+ responsibility in Milgram‘s experiment (participants were more willing to obey when experimenter said he would take responsibility for the consequences of the shocks So feelings of responsibility need to be lost in order for people to obey)
Negative evaluation of agentic state (1)
- 35% in Milgram’s experiment refused to deliver electric shocks all the way up to 450V
What is legitimate authority
People are more likely to obey an order given by someone who has legitimate authority (have social control)
The power of legitimate authority stems from the perceived position in a social situation
Can be shown through symbols of power such as uniform
People accept the definitions of the situation provided by a legitimate authority figure
Sometimes legitimate authority requires an institution
Positive evaluation of legitimate authority (2)
+ passerby (90% obeyed guard to pick up litter but only 50% obeyed civilian)
+aviation accidents (in incidents were crew’s actions were a contributing factor in the black box was available there was excessive dependence on the captains authority and expertise, second officer knew it was risky but said “captain knew what he was doing”)
negative evaluation of legitimate authority (1)
- resistance (Doesn’t explain why some people resist the orders. 35% in Milgram’s experiment refused to obey the experimenter)
What is a dispositional explanation of obedience
Authoritarian personality (more likely to obey authority figures)
What do you dispositional explanations claim
An individual’s personality characteristics determine their behaviour
Traits of authoritarian personalities (7)
- Servile towards people are perceived higher status
- hostile towards people of lower status
- preoccupied with power
- inflexible in their beliefs and values
- conformist and conventional
- likely to categorise people as “us “ and “them”
- dogmatic
Why do people develop authoritarian personalities
Due to receiving extremely harsh discipline from their parents during upbringing (involving physical punishment)
Create hostility which I directed towards week at others who can’t fight back
Act submissive to parents because they fear them and then extend this behaviour to all authority figures
What questionnaire measures authoritarian personalities
The F (fascism) scale
Elms and Milgram’s experiment procedure
Chose 20 obedient participants from the Milgram experiment and 20 define participants
Two months after they completed a MMPI scale and a F scale.
Also ask open ended questions about their relationship with their parents
Findings from Elm’s and Milgram’s experiment
Little difference between participants in terms of the MMPI scale
High levels of authoritarianism among obedient participants
Obedient participants were more likely to report they hadn’t been close to their fathers and describe the fathers in negative terms
Obedient participants were more likely to perceive the experimenter as admirable
Many obedient participants reported good relationships with their parents so not all had an authoritarian personality
Positive evaluation of authoritarian personality (2)
+ f scale (people who scored high were more likely to hold electric wire when doing arithmetic problem)
+self shock (People who scored high were more willing to shock themselves when making mistakes)
negative evaluation of authoritarian personality(3)
- situational factors (may be more important. In milgram’s, obedience = 100% when Mr Wallace made no noise but when 2 authority figures argued = 0%]
- uncommon (less than 65% have authoritarian personalities so can’t be the only explanation)
- education (possible that lack of education causes authoritarian personality and obedience. Milgram saw people with lower levels of education were more obedient and another psychologist saw that they were more likely to have an authoritarian personality)
what is a situational explanation of resistance to social influence
social support theory
What is the social support theory (conformity)
- people are more likely to not conform if they have an ally who resists social influence
- when unanimity is broken people think there are other, equally legitimate ways of thinking/responding
- presence of ally makes them more confident in their decision and better able to stand up to the majority
what is social support theory (obedience)
- more likely to defy authority figure if they see disobedient role model refusing to obey
- rejecting instructions challenges authority figure’s legitimate authority
Positive evaluation of social support theory (2)
- Milgram (when there was a disobedient role model obedience to shock to 450V dropped from 65% to 10%)
- Asch (conformity dropped from 33% to 5% when one confederate acted as an ally)
Negative evaluation of social support theory (1)
- resistance (some people resist without support (in Milgram and Asch’s experiments) so it isn’t a complete explanation. other factors such as personality traits play a part)
what is a dispositional explanation of resistance to social influence
locus of control
what is locus of control
the extent to which a person believes they have control over their own behaviour
people with internal locus of control…
- what occurs in life is a result of their own behaviour/actions
- can alter what happens to them
people with external locus of control…
- what happens in their lives is outside of their control
- what occurs is by chance
why are people with high internal locus less likely to conform and obey (4)
- more likely to be leaders rather than followers
- less concerned with social approval
- more self-confident
- believe they control their own circumstances
Positive evaluation of locus of control (2)
+Milgram (gave questionnaire to participants and found 35% who disobeyed had internal locus of control)
+Germans (germans who sheltered jews from the Nazis had internal locus of control)
Negative evaluation of locus of control (1)
-assertiveness (conformers were less assertive but scored same on locus of control so it is more important in determining if a person will obey or conform)
What is minority influence
- very small persuasive groups or individuals gain social influence and change the way the majority behaves and thinks
- leads people to truly change private views due to cognitive conflict between current beliefs and new deviant ideas proposed by minority
what does majority influence lead to
compliance
what does minority influence lead to
conversion:
- change private views but may continue go alter behaviour in public to avoid rejection
- deeper and long lasting
- slower process
- may be unconscious
what is social crypto-amnesia
when an individual is not aware where the new idea originated from
when are minority groups more convincing
-committed (take them more seriously) -consistent (people reassess the issue) -flexible (must negotiate their position)
Positive evaluation of minority influence (2)
+gay rights (didn’t matter if views were positive or negative; participants would publicly comply with majority but be privately converted)
+creative thinking (minority influence stimulates more creative thinking and more active information processing which leads to people questioning their views)
Negative evaluation of minority influence (1)
-private resistance (meta analysis suggests people also privately resist to the minority viewpoint as well as publicly)
define social change
changes in attitudes, behaviours or laws that take place on a large scale and affect all of society
five stages of social change through minority influence
- drawing attention to the issue
- cognitive conflict
- consistency of position
- the augmentation principle (if willing to suffer they are seen as more committed and taken more seriously)
- the snowball effect
Positive evaluation of social change through minority influence (2)
+ gay rights
+ creative thinking
Negative evaluation of social change through minority influence (1)
-private resistance
social change and conformity (majority influence)
behaviour is based on the perceived norm
misperception = gap between actual norm and perceived norm
what are social norm interventions
identify a widespread misconception
use perception correction strategies
aim is to communicate the actual norm so people moderate their behaviour and bring it in line
social change and obedience (majority influence)
zimbardo suggested obedience could bring about social change
e.g. changing the law to allow gay marriage means people are more accepting because they are inclined to obey the law
positive evaluation of social change through majority influence (2)
+drink driving (state problem of alcohol related crashes among young adults. only 20% had driven when drunk but 92% believed the majority of their peers did. by stating 4/5 don’t drink and drive the crashes massively reduced)
+smoking
negative evaluation of social change through majority influence (1)
-not all social norm interventions lead to social change (tested effectiveness of campaigns to bring down student alcohol use. survey done at start and after 3 years showed students did not show lower perceptions of peers drinking or lower alcohol consumption)
