Social Influence

Question 1

What Is Conformity?

Answer 1

Conformity is a type of social influence that describes how a person changes their attitude or behaviour in response to group pressure,

There are three types of conformity.

Question 2

Three Types Of Conformity?

Answer 2

Compliance,
Identification,
Internalisation.

Question 3

Compliance?

Answer 3

The most shallow type of conformity,

Here, a person changes their public behaviour, the way they act, but not their private beliefs,

Usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence (NSI),

E.g. saying you like dnb because everyone your with does, when really your private belief is that you hate it.

Question 4

Identification?

Answer 4

Middle level conformity,

Here, a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group,

Usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence (NSI),

E.g. becoming vegetarian and believing in vegetarianism when being around new flat mates who are non-meat eaters. However, this change is not permanent because when not around the flat mates, you eat meat.

Question 5

Internalisation?

Answer 5

Deepest level of conformity,

Here, a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs,

Usually a long-term change and often the result of information social influence (ISI),

E.g. an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts to this faith, then their religious way of life continues without the presence of the group as they have internalised this belief.

Question 6

Explanations For Conformity?

Answer 6

Two Explanations:

• Normative Social Influence (NSI),
• Informational Social Influence (ISI).

Question 7

Normative Social Influence?

Answer 7

An explanation for conformity,

When a person conforms to be accepted and to feel that they belong to the group, however, they do not change their private opinion,

Here, a person conforms because it is socially rewarding, or to avoid social rejection,

E.g. to avoid feeling that they don’t ‘fit in’,

NSI is usually associated with compliance and identification.

Question 8

Informational Social Influence?

Answer 8

An explanation for conformity,

When a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is ‘right’,

Usually associated with internalisation,

E.g. if a person changes their political ideology from Conservative to Liberal, then they have internalised these new beliefs on a semi-permanent basis and believe voting liberal is ‘right’ for them.

Question 9

Evaluating Explanations For Conformity (Breakdown)?

Answer 9

Asch - strength,
Jenness - strength,
Perrin + Spencer - weakness,
Schultz et al - strength.

Question 10

Asch Evaluation?

Answer 10

Asch - 1951,

Performed a study into conformity which provides research for normative social influence (NSI),

He found many particpants when along with obviously wrong answers of other group members,

When asked by Asch is post-experimental interviews why they did this, participants said they changed their answers to avoid disapproval form the rest of the group,

This shows how compliance has occured,

Further study - Asch demonstrated (1955) that when the pressure to publicly conform is removed by asking participants to write down their answers on a piece of paper, rather than say them, the conformity rates fell by 12.5% as the fear of rejection became less.

Question 11

Jenness Evaluation?

Answer 11

Jenness - 1932,

Research support for the role of informational social influence (ISI),

Participants were asked to initially make independent judgements about the number of beans contained in a jar and then discuss their estimate in a group,

Participants then made a second, individual private estimate,

Jenness found that this second private estimate moved closer to the group estimate and that females typically conformed more,

This shows that internalisation of group beliefs will occur in unfamiliar, ambiguous situations.

Question 12

Perrin + Spencer Evaluation?

Answer 12

Perrin + Spencer - 1980,

Individual differences may play a role in explaining social influence, which means the processes will not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way,

Conducted an Asch-style experiment, but this time using engineering students in the UK,

Only one conforming response was observed out of 400 trials,

This could be due to the fact that the students felt more confident in their ability to judge line lengths due to their experience in engineering and so felt less pressure to conform,

However, it could be argued that this difference is due to a historical bias from comparing research conducted in a different era and almost 30 years apart where rapid social changes have emerged and norms have changed.

Question 13

Schultz Et Al Evaluation?

Answer 13

Schultz et al - 2008,

There are real-world applications that demonstrate that normative social influence also occurs beyond the artificial laboratory setting,

E.g. Schultz et al gathered data from many hotels over a week where guests were allocated rooms randomly as either control or experimental conditions,

In control rooms, there was a door hanger informing the participants of the environmental benefits of re-using towels,

In the experimental rooms, there was additional information stating that 75% of guests chose to reuse their towels each day,

The results showed that in comparison to the control group, guests who received a message that contained normative information about other guests reduced their need for fresh towels by 25%, showing they had conformed in order to ‘fit in’ with the perceived group behaviour.

Question 14

Key Study: Jenness?

Answer 14

1932,

Aim: To examine whether individuals will change their opinion in an ambiguous (unclear) situation, in response to group discussion.,

Method: Glass bottle filled with 811 white beans (this was the ambiguous situation). Sample consisted of 26 students who individually estimated how many beans were in the bottle. Participants were then dived into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate after discussion. Following the discussion, the individuals were given another opportunity to estimate the number of beans, to see if the original answer changed,

Average Change: Changed answer by 256 beans (Males) + changed answer by 382 beans (Females),

Results: Jenness found that nearly all participants changed their original answer when provided with another opportunity to. Range of the whole group went from 1875 before to 474 after discussion. This is a decrease of 75 per cent, which demonstrated the converging opinions of the participants after the discussion,

Conclusion: These results suggest that individuals change their initial estimate die to ISI, as they believed the group estimates were more likely to be correct than their own.

Question 15

Key Study: Asch?

Answer 15

1951,

Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure to conform from unanimous majority affects conformity in an unambiguous situation,

Method: Sample was 123 male undergraduate students from Swarthmore Collage USA, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task where he placed one participant in a room with 6-8 confederates who had agreed their answers in advance. The participant did not know of the actors, she was deceived. The real participant was always seated second to last,

In turn, each participant had to say which line A, B or C was most like the target line in length. The correct answer was OBVIOUS (unlike Jenness’ study). Each participant completed 18 trails and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 of the trials, called ‘critical trials’. The participants conformity was examined.

Results: Asch measured how many time each real participants conformed to the obviously incorrect, majority view. On average, the participants conformed 32% in the critical trials. 74% conformed on at least one critical trial. 26% never conformed. Asch used a control group in which the participants were alone and found that less than 1% ever gave an incorrect answer.

Conclusion: Asch interviewed the participants to find why they conformed. They said they though they would be ridiculed if they did not agree with the rest of the group. This confirms of NSI and the desire to fit in publicly without changing private view.

Question 16

What Is A Confederate?

Answer 16

An actor working on behalf of the examiner,

Used in Asch key study experiment.

Question 17

Evaluating Asch Key Study?

Answer 17

Biased Sample - 123 male students from college in America. We cannot generalise the results to other populations or females. As a result, Asch’ study lacks population validity,

Low Levels Of Ecological Validity - Asch’ test of conformity, a line judgement task, is an artificial task, which does not reflect conformity in everyday life which results in the study lacking mundane realism. Unable to generalise the results to other real-life situations,

Lacks Historical Validity - Study took place in time in US history when conformity was arguably higher and has been criticised as being a ‘child of its time’. Perrin and Spencer (1980) found significantly lower levels of conformity compared to Asch’ study. Does not reflect modern time conformity,

Demand Characteristics + Ethics - Broke ethical guidelines including deception and protection from harm. He deliberately deceived his participants by saying they were participating in a vision test. If they were aware of the true aim, they may have displayed demand characteristics and acted different. Asch’s participants were not protected from psychological harm and many of the participants reported feeling stressed when disagreeing the the majority. Asch’ experiment, however, required this deception to get results and he interviewed all of his participants to overcome this issue of stress when disagreeing.

Question 18

Variations Of Asch?

Answer 18

Following Asch’ research, many variations of his line judgement task were carried out in order to determine which factors influenced conformity levels,

These variations include:

• Group size,
• Unanimity,
• Task difficulty.

Question 19

Group Size?

Answer 19

A variation of Asch’ original key study,

To determine if the size of the majority affects the rate of conformity,

Variations ranged from 1 to 15 confederates, and the levels of conformity varied dramatically,

When there was 1 confederates, the real participants conformed on just 3% of critical trials,

2 confederates - 12.8% conformity in critical trial,
3 confederates - 32% conformity in critical trial,

32% conformity was the same percentage Asch found in his original study - this shows that conformity reaches its highest level at just 3 confederates, once a majority pressure is created,

Asch continued this group size experiment and found the percentage dropped when at 15 confederates - possibly because the real participants became suspicious of the experiment and not because the pressure to conform is necessarily less in larger groups?

Question 20

Unanimity?

Answer 20

A variation of Asch’ original key study,

Unanimity refers to the extent that members of a majority agree with one another,

In asch’ original study, all confederates were instructed to give incorrect answers throughout. In a variation of the study, one confederate was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. The rate of conformity dropped to 5% during this trial. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support in their belief, then they are most likely to resist to conform,

In another variation, one of the confederates gave a different incorrect answer to the rest of the confederates.
Conformity from the real participants then dropped again but this time to 9%. This shows if you beak or disrupt the groups unanimous position, then conformity is reduced, even if the answer by the supporter is still incorrect.

Question 21

Task Difficulty?

Answer 21

A variation of Asch’ original key study,

In the original study, the answer was obvious. In a variation, he made the task more difficult by making the difference between the lines smaller, therefore making it more ambiguous. Asch found the rate of conformity increased although he didn’t report the percentage (% would have been higher though),

This is likely to be the result of ISI, as individuals look to another for guidance when undertaking an ambiguous task, similar to the results found in Jenness’ study (to be ‘right’).

Question 22

Evaluation: Issues And Debates For (Types Of) Conformity?

Answer 22

• Social psychology acknowledges the role of situational factors, such as group pressure, in determining human behaviour such as conformity. However, it also suggests that individuals can exercise personal responsibility for their actions and demonstrate free will through showing independent behaviour.
• Explanations of conformity (NSI/ISI) adopt a nomothetic approach as they attempt to provide general principles relating to human behaviour when observed under group pressure from a majority,
• Social psychology uses scientific methods, often in highly-controlled labatory settings, to investigate key concepts which can be replicated, e.g. Asch’ original study. However, the fact that Asch only used male participants shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between men and women in relation to conformity.

Question 23

What Is Conformity To Social Roles?

Answer 23

Is when an individual adopts a particular behaviour and belief, while in a particular social situation,

E.g. whilst at school, your teacher adopts the behaviour and beliefs of a “teacher”, which may be very different to the beliefs they adopt with their friends,

This type of conformity represents identification, where a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only whilst they are in a social role.

Question 24

How Do People Learn These Social Roles?

Answer 24

By copying the others who are also complying to this social role.

Question 25

Key Study: Zimbardo (Aim And Method)?

Answer 25

1973,

Conducted an extremely controversial study on conformity to social roles called the Stanford Prison Experiment,

Aim: To examine whether people would conform to the social roles of a prison guard or prisoner when placed in a mock prison environment. He also wanted to examine whether behaviour in prisons was due to internal dis-positional factors (themselves) or external situational factors (the environment of the prison),

Method: Sample consisted of 21 male university students who volunteered in response to a newspaper advert. Participants were selected from 75 volunteers on basis of their physical and mental stability. Each paid 15 dollars a day to take part. Each prisoner was assigned to one of two social roles: prisoner or guard,

Zimbardo wanted the experience to be as real as possible, turning the basement of Stanford University into a mock prison. The prisoners were arrested by real police and fingerprinted, stripped and given a numbered smock to wear, with chains around their ankles. The guards were given uniforms, dark glasses, handcuffs and truncheon. The guards were instructed to run the prison without using physical violence. The experiment was set to run for 2 weeks.

Question 26

Key Study: Zimbardo (Results And Conclusion)?

Answer 26

Results: Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and the guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within days, the prisoners rebelled but this was quickly crushed by the guards who became increasingly abusive toward the prisoners. The guards dehumanised the prisoners, walking them during the night and making them clean toilets with their bare hands; the prisoners became increasingly submissive, identifying further with their subordinate role,

Five of the prisoners were released from the experiment early, because of their adverse reactions to the physical and mental torment, e.g. crying and extreme anxiety. Although the experiment was set to run for two weeks, it was terminated after just 6 days, when fellow postgraduate student Christina Maslach convinced Zimbardo that conditions in this were inhumane.

Conclusions: Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours before the study.

Question 27

Evaluation Of Zimbardo?

Answer 27

Weakness - Reicher and Haslam (2006) repeated the Stanford prison experiment. They randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard to 15 men. The men did not conform to their roles immediately, with guards refusing to impose their authority. The prisoners identified as a group to challenge the authority - this made the prison collapse. These findings contradict Zimbardo’s findings,

Weakness/Strength - Individual differences and personality also determines the extent to which a person conforms to social roles. In Zimbardo’s research, the behaviour of guards varied dramatically, from severely sadistic behaviour (1/3 of men) to other behaviour of guards such as offering them cigarettes and sympathy. This suggests that situational factors are not the only cause of conformity to social roles, and dispositional factors such as personality also plays a role. Zimbardo’s conclusion could have been overstated,

Weakness - ZImbardo’s experiment has been heavily criticised for breaking many ethical guidelines (especially protection from harm) - with five prisoners leaving the experiment early because of their adverse reactions to the mental and physical torment. Some guards reported feeling guilty and anxious as a result of their actions. Zimbardo acknowledged that his study should have been stopped earlier - despite his efforts to follow ethical guidelines of the uni and debrief his participants. It has been suggested that Zimbardo responded more in the role of superintendent of the prison rather than the researcher - with responsibilities for the men,

Weakness - Zimbardo believes his research is not representative to conditions in US prisons today. He made a clear goal for his experiment - to provide real-world application of US prisons. He considers his research to be a failure, arguing that conditions in prisons are worse now than they were during the time of the study.

Question 28

Conformity To Social Roles: Issues And Debates?

Answer 28

• Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment acknowledges the role of situational factors such as the roles people play as members of certain social groups, in this case prisoner or guard, in determining human behaviour such as brutality or submission and withdrawal.
• The fact that Zimbardo only used male participants in his sample shows a beta bias, as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between male and women in relation to conformity to social roles.

Question 29

What Is Obedience?

Answer 29

Obedience is a form of social influence that is in direct response to an order from another person.

Question 30

Key Study: Milgram A01?

Answer 30

A01 - Explanations of obedience (1963).

Aim: To investigate whether ordinary people would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain and injure an innocent person.

Method: Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 male American participants. Recruited through a newspaper advert. Paid $4.50 to take part.

They were all invited to Yale University, where they met the experimenter and another participant (they were both confederates). The experimenter gave the real participant the role of ‘teacher’ and was instructed by the experimenter to administer an electric shock of increasing strength 15-450 V to the ‘learner’ (other confederate) every time he made a mistake when recalling words from a list. The shock increased by 15 vaults every time and at 300 V the learner would express extreme pain. The experiment continued until either the teacher refused to continue or the bolts reached 450 V.

Results: All participants reached 300 V, however, only 65% continued and administered the full 450 V. Participants showed signs of distress and tension (for example; sweating).

Conclusion: Milgram found that under the right situational circumstances, people will obey unjust orders from someone perceived to be a legitimate authority figure.

Question 31

Milgram - Evaluation?

Answer 31

Criticism - Milgrams study broke several ethical guidelines as Milgram deceived his participants into thinking that they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learning. Milgram did not protect his participants from psychological harm since many of them showed signs of distress and may have felt guilt following the experiment.

Strength (Counteract^) - Some may argue that participants were told they did have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any point. This suggests that they, themselves, are responsible for the possible psychological harm caused and that the ethical criticism of Milgrams research is not appropriate.

Criticism (Arguing for 1st paragraph) - Counter-argument can also be criticised by explaining how the experimenter used verbal prods such as “the experiment requires that you continue” whenever the teacher refused to shock the learner. The nature of this speech might have corrupted the teachers personal beliefs and forced them to believe that they did not have the right to withdraw.

New Criticism - Milgram is that the study was conducted in a laboratory study, therefore the conditions of the study were unrealistic, making the ecological validity of the study low. Because of this, we are unable to generalise the results of the study to real-life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions to the same degree.

Strength (Counteract^) - Milgram counters this claim stating that the laboratory can reflect a wider authority relationships seen in real-life situations. For example, Hofling et al (1966) found that nurses were obedient to unjustified instructions from a doctor in a hospital setting. This counter argument suggests that the results from the study could possibly be generalised in specific conditions/settings, such as those in a hospital.

Question 32

What Is The Autonomous State?

Answer 32

Agency theory suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society. In order for this to happen, a person needs to surrender some of their free will.

When a person surrenders some of their free will and is acting independently, it is called the autonomous state.

Question 33

What Is The Agentic State?

Answer 33

The opposite of the autonomous state is the agentic state.

This occurs when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their ‘agent’, with little personal responsibility and reduced moral strain for their actions.

Question 34

Agentic Shift?

Answer 34

To shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is referred to as the ‘agentic shift’.

Question 35

Agentic State Referred To In Milgrams Study?

Answer 35

Milgram’s original experiment - 65% of participants administered the full 450 V (these people are arguably in agentic state).

In one variation of Milgrams experiment - additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the ‘teacher’. In this variation, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 V rose dramatically (from 65% to 92.5%).

This highlights the power of the Agentic shift and shifting responsibility to another person by having them act as the agent.

Question 36

What Are The Situational Explanations To Obedience?

Answer 36

External factors that affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders.

On our specification: proximity, location and uniform.

These are the three situational explanations used when examining Milgrams variational studies.

Question 37

Legitimacy Of Authority Referred To In Milgrams Study?

Answer 37

Milgram’s original research took place at Yale University. This allows the participants to recognise the legitimate authority of the researcher in Milgram’s original research. The percentage of participants administering the full 450 V was 65% at Yale.

However, when the experiment was replicated in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, this change in location reduced the legitimacy of the authority; participants were less likely to trust the experiment and so the power of authority figure was diminished. The obedience levels dropped to 47.5% in this variation.

Question 38

Proximity As A Situational Variable?

Answer 38

Proximity is a situational variable affecting obedience. It refers to how close you are to someone or something.

In Milgrams experiment, proximity worked on numerous levels: how close the teacher was to the learner and how close the teacher was to the experimenter.

Milgram conducted a variation where the teacher and learner were seated in the same room. In this variation, the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 V dropped from 65% to 40%.Obedience levels fell because the teacher was able to understand the levels of pain more directly.

Milgram also found that when the experimenter left the room and gave the instructions over the telephone, obedience levels fell to 20.5%, with some teachers even faking giving the shocks.

Question 39

Location As A Situational Variable?

Answer 39

Milgram conducted his original research in Yale University in order to test the power of location.

Milgram conducted a variation in a rundown building in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this variation, the percentage of the participants who administered the full 450 V dropped from 65% to 47.5%.

Question 40

Uniform As A Situational Variable?

Answer 40

In most of Milgrams variations, the experimenter wore a white lab coat. This indicates his status as a university professor or scientist.

Milgram examined the power of uniform in a variation where the experimenter was called away and replaced by another participant. This participant was wearing normal, everyday clothes and pretending to be an ordinary member of the public (he was in fact another confederate). In this variation, the man in ordinary clothes came up with the idea of increasing the voltage every time a mistake was made.

The percentage of participants who administered the full 450 V dropped from 65% to 20%. This demonstrates the dramatic power that uniform can have on levels of obedience.

Question 41

Explanations For Obedience (+ situational variables) - Evaluation?

Answer 41

Criticism - Milgram’s research only consisted of male participants which shows a beta bias within the results of the investigation. Therefore, we are unable to generalise the results of the study to females.

Strength - that counter-argues this criticism are the findings of cross-cultural research that have supported Milgram’s variations study. Miranda et al (1981) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students (both male and female) when replicating Milgram’s study. This suggests that Milgram’s results can be generalised, not only to females but to other cultures.

Criticism - However, other psychologists such as Smith and Bond (1998) suggest that replications of Milgram’s study have taken place in only Westernised countries (USA, Spain, Australia). This suggests that both Miranda et al and Milgram’s conclusions on proximity, uniform and location cannot be generalised to non-westernised countries.

Strength - Milgram’s study is the research support that took place in New York; Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress differently (a jacket and tie; a milkmans uniform; and a security guards uniform) in order to replicated Milgram’s uniform variation experiment. People in the street were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie. This research supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform is a situational variable that portrays authority and produces obedience in others.

Strength - Further research supports Milgram’s conclusions. Blass and Schmitt (2001) asked students to watch the original footage of Milgram’s research and suggest who was responsible for any ‘harm’ caused to the learner. The students named the experimenter, a scientist wearing a white coat. Psychologists suggested that this suggestion was due to the social hierarchy and authority this man held. This experiment further suggests that uniform successfully portrays authority and produces obedience in others, showing how Milgram’s conclusions are accurate and true.

Question 42

Characteristic Associated With Higher Levels Of Obedience?

Answer 42

Authoritarian personality - a dispositional (internal) factor when a person is extremely obedient due to strict parenting when they were young.

(More on this on ‘What Did Adorno Et Al Believe Flashcard’)

Question 43

What Did Adorno et al Believe?

Answer 43

Adorno et al (1950) believed that the foundations for an authoritarian personality were laid in early childhood - as a result of harsh and strict parenting.

This made the child feel that the love of their parents was conditional and dependent upon how they behaved.

This then creates resentment within the child as they grow up and since they cannot express it at the time the feelings are displaced onto others that are seen as ‘weak’ or ‘inferior’ as a form of scapegoating.

Question 44

Fascism?

Answer 44

Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology and is thought to be at the core of the authoritarian personality.

Question 45

Examples Of Items From The F-Scale?

Answer 45

Examples of items from the F scale include:

• “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”,
• “Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished”,
• “There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love gratitude and respect for his parents”.

Question 46

Key Study: Adorno et al?

Answer 46

Aim: Adorno et al (1950) conducted a study using over 2000 middle-class Caucasian, Americans to find out their unconscious views towards other racial groups.

Method: Adorno and his colleagues developed a number of questionnaires, including one called the ‘F-scale’ which measures the fascist tendencies.

Findings: Individuals who scored highly on the F-scale and the other questionnaires self-reported identifying with strong people. They also showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’. In addition, those high on the F-scale were status-conscious regarding themselves and others, showing excessive respect to those in higher power. Adorno and colleagues also found that authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style which categorised other people into specific stereotypical categories, leading to a strong and positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Conclusion: Individuals with an authoritarian personality were more obedient to authority figures and showed an extreme submissiveness and respect. They are also uncomfortable with uncertainty, with everything being seen as either right or wrong - no ‘grey areas’. This demonstrates an inflexible attitude. They, therefore, believe that society requires strong leadership to enforce rigid traditional values.

Question 47

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Milgram and Elms?

Answer 47

There is research support for the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted post-experimental interviews with participants who were fully obedient in Milgram’s original study to see if there was a link between high levels of obedience and authoritarian personality. It was found that the obedient participants scored higher on the F scale in comparison to the disobedient participants.

Furthermore, the obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter in Milgrams study which was quite the opposite for dis-obedient participants.

It was concluded that the obedient participants in Milgram’s original research displayed more characteristics of an authoritarian personality.

Question 48

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Middendorp and Meleon?

Answer 48

There may be individual differences that contribute to the development of the authoritarian personality.

Research by Middendorp and Meleon (1990) has found that less-educated people are more likely than well-educated people to display authoritarian personality characteristics. If these claims are correct, then it is possible to conclude that it is not authoritarian personality characteristics alone that lead to obedience but levels of education as well.

Question 49

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Methodological Criticisms?

Answer 49

There may be methodological criticisms associated with the measures used to determine authoritarian personality traits.

It is possible that the F-scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable.

For example, participants may appear more authoritarian because they believe that their answers are ‘socially correct’ and consequently, they are incorrectly classified as authoritarian when they are not. This, therefore, reduces the internal validity of the questionnaire research method used in determining the degree of authoritarianism.

Question 50

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Christie and Johoda?

Answer 50

It is argued that the F-scale may, in fact, represent a political biased.

Christie and Jahoda (1954) highlight a weakness in the F-scale, for only measuring extreme right-wing ideologies, thus ignoring the role that authoritarianism has also played historically in left-wing politics such as Chinese Maoism and Russian Bolshevism, for example.

This identifies a bias in what is believed to be at the core of the authoritarian personality and therefore poses a limitation of Adorno’s theory since the F scale cannot account for obedience to authority across the diverse political range.

Question 51

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Greenstein?

Answer 51

A limitation of the authoritarian personality explanation is that it is based on a flawed methodology.

Greenstein(1969)goes as far as to describe the F-scale as ‘a comedy of methodological errors’. For example, the scale has come in for severe criticism because every one of its items is worded in the same direction. This means it is possible to get a high score for authoritarianism just by ticking the same line of boxes down one side of the page.

People who agree with the items on the F-scale are therefore not necessarily authoritarian, but merely ‘acquiescerd’, and the scale is just measuring the tendency to agree to everything.

Also, Adorno and his colleagues interviewed their participants about their childhood experiences. However, the researchers knew the participants test scores, so knew which of them had authoritarian personality. They also knew the hypothesis of the study - this may have lead to a bias interview/bias questions.

Question 52

Evaluation Of Adorno Et Al - Issues And Debates?

Answer 52

• Adorno et al came to believe that a high degree of authoritarianism was similar to suffering from a psychological disorder, with the cause lying within the personality of the individual (nature) but originally caused by the treatment they received from their parents at a young age (nurture). Obedient behaviour is, therefore, determined by our socialisation experiences and not a result of free-will.
• The dispositional explanation uses a nomothetic approach to establish general laws of behaviour relating to authoritarian characteristics displayed by those scoring highly on the F scale and other measures.

Question 53

What Is Acquiescence Bias?

Answer 53

The tendency for people to agree rather than disagree.

Question 54

Difference Between Asch And Milgram’s Research?

Answer 54

Asch’s (1951) research demonstrates the power of social influence through conformity and his variations provide an insight into how group size, unanimity, and task difficulty can increase or decrease the influence of the majority.

Milgram (1963), on the other hand, highlights our susceptibility to obeying orders, and his variations reveal the different variables that can increase or decrease our willingness to follow orders.

Since Asch and Milgram’s research, psychologist have examined explanations of resistance to social influence; our willingness to resist pressure to conform or obey, including social support and locus of control.

Question 55

Social Support - A01?

Answer 55

One reason that people can resist the pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally - this is someone supporting their point of you.

Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent. Individuals who have support for their point of view no longer fear being ridiculed, allowing them to avoid normative social influence.

Although Asch reports that if this dissenter then returns to conform then so does the naive participant, meaning that the effects can only be short-term. Furthermore, individuals who have support for their point of you are less likely to obey orders and feel better able to resist the pressure if there is another person present who also does not obey.

Question 56

Social Support - AO3?

Answer 56

Strength - There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to conform. In one of Asch’s (1951) variations, one of the confederates was instructed to give the correct answer throughout. In this variation, the rate of conformity dropped to 5%. This demonstrates that if the real participant has support for their belief (social support), then they are more likely to resist the pressure to conform. This suggests that social support lowers the pressure of the group, making it easier to demonstrate independent behaviour.

Strength - There is research support for social support in reducing pressure to obey which comes from Milgram’s study (1974). In one of Milgram’s variations, the real participant was paired with two additional confederates, who also played the role of teachers. In this variation, the two additional confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early. In this variation, the percentage of real participants who proceeded to the full 450 V dropped from 65% (in the original) to 10%. This shows that if the real participant has support for that just desire to disobey, then they are more likely to resist the pressure of an authority figure.

Question 57

What Is Locus Of Control - AO1?

Answer 57

In some cases people can resist the pressure to conform or obey because of their personality. Rutter (1966) proposed the idea of locus of control, which is the extent to which people believe that they have control over their own lives.

Question 58

Internal Locus Of Control?

Answer 58

People with an internal locus of control believe that what happens in their life is largely the result of their own behaviour and that they have control over their life. Individuals with an internal locus of control are, therefore, more independent and find it easier to resist pressure to conform or obey.

Question 59

External Locus Of Control?

Answer 59

People with an external locus of control believe that what happens to them is controlled by external factors and that they do not have complete control over their life. This means they are more likely to succumb to pressure to conform or obey and are less likely to show independent behaviour.

Question 60

Locus Of Control - Spector (AO3)?

Answer 60

Strength - There is research that supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform. Spector (1983) used Rotter’s locus of control scale to determine whether locus of control is associated with conformity. From 157 students, Spector found that individuals with a high internal locus of control were less likely to conform than those with a high external locus of control, but only in situations of normative social influence, where individuals conform to be accepted. There was no difference between the two groups for informational social influence. This suggests that normative social influence, the desire to fit in, is more powerful than informational social influence, the desire to be right, when considering locus of control.

Question 61

Locus Of Control - Oliner & Oliner (AO3)?

Answer 61

Strength - Reserach supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey. Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of World War II and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazis and those who had not. Oliner & Oliner found that 406 ‘rescuers’ - who had resisted orders - were more likely to have a high internal locus of control, in comparison with 126 people who had simply followed orders. These results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII and it is difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.

Question 62

Locus Of Control - Twenge et al (AO3)?

Answer 62

Weakness - However, there is contradictory evidence, since not all research supports the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence. Twenge et al (1967) conducted a meta-analysis of studies spanning over four decades and found that, over time, people have become more external in their locus of control but also more resistant to obedience, which is in congregant to rotters original suggestions. This challenges they established links between internal locus of control and higher resistance.

Question 63

What Is Minority Influence?

Answer 63

A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.

This is done using 3 different techniques: consistency, commitment and flexibility.

Question 64

What Is Consistency?

Answer 64

Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and between all the individuals that form the minority.

It’s affective because it draws attention to the minority view.

Consistency increases the amount of interest from other people. It makes other people start to rethink their own views.

We use study by moscovisi to prove this.

Question 65

What Is Flexibility?

Answer 65

Relentless consistency could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending and unresponsible. Therefore minority influence is most effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.

We use study by Nemeth to prove this.

Question 66

What Is Internalisation?

Answer 66

Both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process.

Minority influence leads to this.

Question 67

What Is Commitment?

Answer 67

Sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme activities to draw attention to their views. It is important that these extreme activities are at some risk to the minority because this demonstrates commitment to the cause. Majority group members then pay even more attention.

This is called the augmentation principal.

We would use this description of augmentation principal in the AO1 for commitment.

Question 68

Synchronic Consistency?

Answer 68

They’re all saying the same thing.

Question 69

Diachronic Consistency?

Answer 69

They’ve been saying the same thing for some time now.

Question 70

How Do Flexibility, Commitment, Consistency Relate To Minority Influence?

Answer 70

They all make a person think about the topic.

Over time, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position. They have become converted. The more that this happens, the faster the rate of conversion. This is called the snowball effect. Gradually the minority view has become the majority view and change has occurred.

Question 71

Moscovici?

Answer 71

Consistency AO1: Moscovici

Moscovici (1969) demonstrated minority influence in a study.

172 female participants who where split into groups of six people were asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or green.

Two of the six participants were confederates and in one condition (consistent) the two confederates said that all 36 slides were green.

In the second condition (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue.

Findings: Moscovici found that in the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials, whereas in the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials.

Moscovici’s results show that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in exerting minority influence.

Question 72

Minority Influence AO3?

Answer 72

• Weakness: Moscovici used a biased sample of 172 female participants from America. Cannot GENERALISE the results to other populations, for example male participants. Furthermore, research often suggests that females are more likely than males to conform and therefore further research is required to determine the effect of minority influence on male participants to improve the LOW POPULATION VALIDITY of this experiment.
• Weakness/Strength: Moscovici has also been criticised for breaching ethical guidelines during his study. He deceived his participants, as they were told that they were taking part in a colour perception test when in fact it was an experiment on minority influence. This also means that Moscovici did not gain fully informed consent. Although it is seen as UNRTHICAL to deceive participants, Moscovici’s experiment required deception in order to achieve valid results, as if the participants were aware of the true aim, they might have displayed demand characteristics and acted differently. Thus, a COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS would deem that the insight gained from such research was worth the short‐term cost to the participants which could be dealt with by means of a debrief following the study.
• Weakness: There are methodological issues with research into minority influence. Judging the colour of a slide is an ARTIFICIAL TASK and therefore lacks mundane realism, since it is not something that occurs every day. Research conditions are criticised as being too far removed from cases of real‐world minority influence such as political campaigning. The implications of real‐world cases are also grossly disproportionate to those seen in a lab setting as they can, for some people, literally be cases of life or death and as such Moscovici’s research lacks EXTERNAL VALIDITY.
• Moscovici’s research into minority influence provides support for informational social influence. In one of his variations, participants were asked to write down their answers rather than say the colour of the slide out loud. This meant that their response was private and not shared with the other group members. Under these circumstances, it was found that agreement with the minority position was in fact higher, suggesting that they had internalised the viewpoint as true and correct. Moscovici suggests that the majority was convinced of the minority’s argument but found it easier to confess this privately, as being associated with a minority position may seem ‘radical’.

Question 73

Nemeth?

Answer 73

Flexibility - AO1:

Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be interpreted negatively.

Being extremely consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours again and again can be seen as rigid and inflexible. This is off-putting to the majority and unlikely to result in any conversions to the minority position. Instead, members of the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments. The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility.

Question 73

Issue And Debate For Minority Influence AO3?

Answer 73

Moscovici’s research can be criticised as being gynocentric.

The results cannot be generalised to males because his research takes an exclusive focus on the conforming behaviour of female participants to a minority influence.

Question 74

What Is Social Change?

Answer 74

Use this for AO1.

Social change refers to the ways in which a society (rather than an individual) develops over time to replace beliefs, attitudes and behaviour with new norms and expectations.

Examples of social change include Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and the suffragettes.

Question 75

Processes That Explain Social Change?

Answer 75

Use these for AO1.

There are a number of processes that can be used to explain social change:

1. Consistency – a consistent message appears more credible and can help to convince a majority.
2. The Augmentation Principle – when the majority pays attention to selfless and risky actions being
   taken by the minority group and is more likely to integrate the group’s opinion into their own personal
   viewpoints due to the personal sacrifice made by the minority.
3. The Snowball Effect – once the minority viewpoint has got the attention of some of the majority group
   members, more and more people begin paying attention and the minority viewpoint gathers
   momentum, much like a snowball growing in size when rolled along a snowy field.
4. Deeper Processing – the more people think about the issue at hand, the more they will, in turn, be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change.
5. Social Cryptoamnesia – the majority knows that a social change has occurred but the source of the
   change and the message itself have become disassociated through the process of social crypto-amnesia and they do not recall how it has happened.
6. Normative Social Influence – social change can be encouraged by reporting the behaviour or attitudes
   of the majority, to urge others to follow suit for normative reasons (e.g. to fit in with the majority).
7. Gradual Commitment – once a small instruction has been followed, it is harder for larger requests to
   be declined. This is often referred to as ‘the foot in the door technique’ and means that people effectively find themselves adopting a new way of behaving gradually over a period of time.
8. Drawing attention – in order for a social change to occur, the majority must first of all be made aware
   of the need for the change.

Question 76

Social Change AO3?

Answer 76

• Minority influence can often act as a barrier to social change. Bashir et al. were interested in investigating why so many people resist social change even when they believe it to be needed. It was found that some minority groups, such as environmental activists or feminists, often live up to the stereotypes associated with those groups, which can be off‐putting for outsiders. This means that the majority often does not want to be associated with a minority for fear of being stereotypically labelled.
• There is research support for the role of normative social influence as a process for social change. Nolan et al. conducted a study which spanned one month in California and involved hanging messages on the front doors of people’s houses in San Diego encouraging them to reduce energy consumption by indicating that most other residents in the neighbourhood were already doing this. As a means of control, some houses received a message about energy usage but with no reference to the behaviour of other people in the area. It was found that the experimental group significantly lowered their energy consumption, showing that conformity can lead to positive social change.
• Minority influence and majority influence may involve different levels of cognitive processing. Moscovici believes that a minority viewpoint forces individuals to think more deeply about the issue. However, Mackie (1987) counters this, suggesting the opposite to be true. She suggests that when a majority group is thinking or acting in a way that is different from ourselves we are forced to think even more deeply about their reasons. This, therefore, casts doubt on the validity of Moscovici’s minority influence theory, suggesting it may be incorrect.
• Methodological issues may undermine the links drawn between social influence processes and social change. For example, many of the research studies providing an explanation for social change, such as those conducted by Asch, Milgram and Moscovici, can themselves be criticised for issues in their methodology ranging from low generalisability to demand characteristics. This means that there are doubts about the validity of some of the processes involved in social influence and social change due to the research informing the theories.

Question 77

Issue And Debate For Social Change?

Answer 77

Reports of social change within society can involve concepts that have not been, or cannot be, tested empirically, which means they lack scientific credibility.

Therefore, an idiographic approach is often taken, as there is a large amount of subjective interpretation involved in explaining the occurrences of social norms being superseded in society.

That being said, each piece of research that contributed to the processes involved in social influence, such as that of Asch, Milgram and Moscovici, takes a nomothetic approach, as they have each created universal laws to explain human behaviour under certain social circumstances.