Social Influence

Question 1

Agentic state

Answer 1

Explanation imposed by Milgram.

Where an individual carries out orders of an authoritative figure, acting as their agent.

Question 2

Factors needed to make a minority a majority

Answer 2

Consistency
Commitment
Flexibility
Overtime, this will have a snowball effect and the minority will become a majority as more and more conform.

Question 3

Factors affecting conformity

Answer 3

As shown by Asch’s research:
Group size (larger group, more conformity)
Unanimity/social support (more support, less conformity)
Task difficulty (higher difficulty, more conformity)

Question 4

Types of conformity - “someone publicly agrees but their private beliefs remain the same”

Answer 4

Compliance

Question 5

Types of conformity - “someone adopts the behaviours of those around them because the membership/identity is desirable”

Answer 5

Identification

Question 6

Types of conformity - “when someone genuinely accepts the belief of a group and adjusts their behaviour to fit with this”

Answer 6

Internalisation

Question 7

Normative social influence

Answer 7

The desire to be liked or fit in with a group. We conform because it is seen as the ‘normal’ thing to do and hence we will be accepted. It is an emotional process - relates to fear of rejection.

Question 8

Informative social influence

Answer 8

The desire to be right. Because of this desire we look towards others to gain information on how to behave. It is a cognitive process as we have to think logically about who we believe to be right.

Question 9

Aims of Asch’s research

Answer 9

To establish the extent that group pressure can influence an individual to conform to the groups way of thinking.

Question 10

Procedure of Asch’s research

Answer 10

P’s seated around table.
All shown a ‘reference’ line, and another card with three more lines on it.
P’s asked to publicly declare which line is same length as reference line (designed to be easy).
All but one are involved in aims of experiment so give the same answer that is obviously wrong.
Innocent p is the penultimate, so has pressure to conform (despite knowing answer is wrong).

Question 11

Findings and conclusions of Asch’s study

Answer 11

The innocent participant would almost always conform to the rest of the group. This is an example of Compliance (private views don’t change just wants to fit in) and Normative social influence (the desire to be liked).

We can conclude that a group exerts a strong influence over a minority to conform.

Question 12

Positives of Asch’s study

Answer 12

Simplicity of task makes influence of conformity clearer.

Most ethical issues were protected.

Lab study - control over variables makes results more reliable.

Question 13

Negatives of Asch’s study

Answer 13

Carried out on male Americans, ungeneralisable.

Lab study - lacks external validity.

Unethical to deceive the participant and cause them confusion.

Question 14

Stanford Prison experiment - procedure

Answer 14

P’s self-volunteered. Separated into ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’. Classic arrest procedure was acted out, prisoners were strip-searched and deloused. Given uniform and number by which they would be called. Stripped of identity.

Guards - told to do whatever they felt necessary, complete power over prisoners.
Prisoners - told to follow the guards orders.

Guards wore uniform with handcuffs and keys. Gave them identity/power in comparison to prisoners. Mirror shades deliberate so when shouted at, prisoners would see their unwell selves being looked down on. Made to feel worthless and inferior.

Question 15

Stanford Prison experiment - behaviours/findings

Answer 15

Guards - punished prisoners for small deeds / constantly harassed them / became more brutal as experiment progressed / played prisoners against one another to obtain satisfaction at being able to punish them for their aggression / abused power.

Prisoners - ripped uniforms and messed up rooms in rebellion / shouted and swore / refused to comply / refused to eat / one withdrew claiming he was mentally damaged.

Experiment stopped after 6 days. Guards took on roles with such enthusiasm that behaviours became a threat.

Question 16

Stanford Prison experiment - conclusion

Answer 16

Systems create bad behaviours, rather than behaviours creating the systems.

Our schemas create expectations of how we should behave in a given situation. So when in a position of apparent authority, we manipulate our actions to fit the role.

Question 17

Stanford Prison experiment - evaluation

Answer 17

:) = gives us some insight into the role of schemas when conforming to a role. Better understanding of behaviours into situations such as WW2.

:( = lacks external validity (guards and prisoners fake, not real prison) / Sample unrepresentative (male students, majority white, middle class, self-volunteered so all had extravert personalities) / man admitted to faking breakdown so validity of results is questionable.

Question 18

Authoritarian personality

Answer 18

Someone’s level of submission/obedience to an authority figure.

Said to be determined by parenting during youth.

Question 19

Milgram’s study - aims

Answer 19

To investigate obedience (being influenced by one person and feeling as though you have no choice but to obey as they have the authority) and the factors affecting it.

Study was based on the interest of how the Nazis obeyed Hitler’s commands in the war.

Question 20

Milgram’s study - procedure

Answer 20

• Males, self-volunteered, aged 20-50.
• There was a rigged draw between p’s in which confederate would always end up as learner and genuine participant always the teacher.
• Also an experimenter (actor) in lab coat who over looked experiment.
• Learner strapped into electrode chair in different room.
• P’s lead to believe it was genuine but no shocks were actually given to learner.
• P’s (teachers) required to ask questions that learner would deliberately get wrong.
• Wrong answers caused an increase in shock (starting 15 volts up to 450 volts).
• Learner would appear to be in great pain.
• When looking to experimenter for guidance, teacher would receive prompts: “please continue” etc.

Question 21

Milgram’s study - findings

Answer 21

12.5% stopped at 300 volts. No one below this.

65% continued until highest voltage (450v).

P’s showed great discomfort: groaning, sweating, tension, and 3 even had seizures.

Question 22

Milgram’s study - conclusions

Answer 22

Shows the strength of obedience and the impactive role of an authoritative figure when influencing behaviour.

Question 23

Milgram’s study - negatives

Answer 23

• P’s were hugely deceived
• V unethical, a lot of distress caused
• Consented to an incorrect brief (lead to believe it was a memory experiment)
• 3 p’s actually had seizures.

Question 24

Factors affecting obedience (variations of Milgram’s study)

Answer 24

Uniform - gives figure more authority making someone feel obliged to comply. When experimenter switched to ‘member of public’ obedience dropped 20%.

Location - the more prestigious the location the higher the rates of obedience due to feeling of legitimacy. In office location only 48% went to 450v.

Proximity - closer to person = feel more responsible so less likely to obey. Further away from person = feel less responsible so more likely to obey.
Closer to authoritative figure = more likely to obey, etc.

Verbal influence = people will conform to the verbal opinions of others and be more or less likely to obey based on what they are saying. Informative social influence - the desire to do what is right.

Question 25

Locus of Control

Answer 25

Rotter (1966) - created Locus of Control scale.

Low score on scale = high external LoC

High score on scale = high internal LoC

External = outcomes in life are outside of your control and lie in the hands of fate.

Internal = outcomes in life are within your control and determined by hard work and decisions.

Question 26

How Locus of Control affects obedience

Answer 26

High external LoC = rely on fate to make decisions. Therefore are more likely to obey because our uncertainty leads us to trust other people and put their instruction down to fate.

High internal LoC = feel in control of life so less likely to obey because we have confidence in own actions.

Question 27

Holland - support for LoC

Answer 27

Carried out similar study to Asch and Milgram.

37% of internal LoC p’s disobeyed.

Only 23% of external LoC p’s disobeyed.

Question 28

Negatives of Rotter’s LoC scale

Answer 28

Can only be applied to new situations. If someone has obeyed in a situation before, they are likely to obey again regardless of their LoC.

Question 29

Moscovici - aims

Answer 29

To investigate if a minority could bring about conformity.

Question 30

Moscovici - procedure

Answer 30

• 32 females told they were taking part in perception study.
• Each group shown 36 blue slides differing in intensity/shade.
• Asked what colour they were.
• Two p’s were confederates and instructed to say either: “green” (consistently) or “green” and “blue” (inconsistently).

Question 31

Moscovici - results

Answer 31

When confederates were consistent, 8% agreed with minority.
When inconsistent, only 1.25% agreed.
32% conformed on at least one occasion.

Question 32

Moscovici - conclusion

Answer 32

Shows consistency is vital for minority influence. Consistency creates image that the minority is confident and correct, swaying the majority to re-consider their own view and conform.

Question 33

Moscovici - evaluation

Answer 33

:) = first main study on minority influence, proves its existence.

\:( = all American females used, unrepresentative.
\:( = lab study, lacks external validity.

Question 34

Milgram’s study - positives

Answer 34

• 74% learnt something about themselves and were glad to have taken part.
• P’s did have the right to withdraw (35% did).
• Debrief at end justified deception.

Question 35

Dispositional factors

Answer 35

Internal factors (such as genetics) that result in a certain personality and contribute to obedience.

Eg, someone’s authoritarian personality.

Question 36

Hofling (1966)

Answer 36

• Nurses called by ‘doctor’ and told to give patients double the normal dosage of drug.
• Nurses knew correct dosage.
• 21 out of 22 obeyed the strangers orders.
• Shows that obeying authority occurs in everyday life.
• Experiment has high external validity.

Question 37

Rank and Jacobson (1977)

Answer 37

• Did variations of Hofling’s study.
• Ensured Nurses knew what the drug was, knew doctor on phone and could consult other nurses.
• Obedience decreased. Consulting allowed conformity to other peoples ideas.

Question 38

Bickman (1974)

Answer 38

• Uniform has the power to make people obey.
• 3 actors dressed in either normal clothes, milkman suit or security guard.
• Actors asked members of public to do things. Eg, pick up bag, etc.
• Most obeyed security guard, least obeyed normal person.
• Field experiment, high in validity. However, opportunity sample is difficult to generalise.

Question 39

Situational factors

Answer 39

• Proximity
• Uniform
• Location

All effect someone’s likelihood to obey. The more the apparent authority, the higher the obedience.

Question 40

Clarke

Answer 40

• P’s given booklet with summary of ‘12 angry men’ containing eyewitness evidence for defendant’s guilt.
• Clarke varied whether he provided p’s with a counter argument or not.
• Found a minority juror only swayed a majority when there was counter evidence.
• Shows that information is needed for minority to sway majority.
• Lacks validity, no implications for p’s. In real life decisions may have been different.

Question 41

Social change

Answer 41

Snowball effect - occurs when a minority begins to gain popularity. As they do, more and more people pay attention and conform to the view. The minorty snowballs, increasing until it is a majority.

Social cryptamnesia - when a social change takes place but no one can remember how/when/why it took place. Eg, smoking ban or popularity of recycling.

Flexibility, commitment and consistency.

Question 42

Examples of social change

Answer 42

Ghandi’s salt march. Non-violent protest against British salt tax. Committed to cause/willing to make sacrifices. Provoked minorty influence through snowball effect.

Rosa Parks/MLK, both consistent and committed which gained them attention and popularity.