Social Influence

Question 1

Binding Factors

Answer 1

Milgram proposed that if there are aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, they are more likely to undergo agentic shift.
- Excusing yourself firm behaviour’s responsibility.-

Question 2

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 2

This suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.

This is justified by the individual’s position of power within the social hierarchy. If they are of a higher status than us we believe they have the potential to punish us socialised into this acceptance of authority from a young age and us so ingrained that we will obey event if it’s destructive authority.

Question 3

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) study- Legitimacy of authority

Answer 3

Legitimacy of the system - the extent to which a person is accepted as and authority in society. Eg. Officers don’t question captain.

Legitimacy of authority within the system - the extent to which a person is accepted as an authority figure in the particular setting/establishment.

Legitimacy of demands or ordered given - Acceptable area for someone to dictate over.

Question 4

Dispositional Factors

Answer 4

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importante of the individuals personalities. Such explanations are often contrasted with the situational explanations.

Question 5

Authoritarian Personality

Answer 5

A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially suspectable to obey people in authority. A submissive to this of higher individual and dismissive lower authority.
Eg.
- hostile to inferior status individuals;
- obedient to superior status individuals;
- Rigid in opinion and beliefs;
- Harsh and critical parents;

Question 6

Adorno study (1950) - Authoritarian Personality

Answer 6

Aim: to investigate that prejudice is the result of an individual’s personality type.

Procedure: Administrates the F-scale questionnaire to 2000 American ppts from all different ages and professions to measure traits of authoritarianism. They also conducted interviews about aspects of their childhood.

Results: identified a particular set of characteristics personality. Those with an authoritarian personality tend to be:
- Hostile to those who’re of inferior status to them but obedient to those of a hush her status;
- Fairly rigid in their opinions;
- Very traditional views;
Those that scored highly on the F-scale tended to report stricter upbringing. Their parents were more likely to be harsh and critical.

Conclusion: Adorno concluded that people who had these characteristics were more likely to categorise people in to “them” and “us” seeing their own group as superior.

Question 7

Childhood Experiences-Authoritarian Personality

Answer 7

• Strict, harsh and critical parents;
• Strict upbringing;
• Hostile parents - lead to being submissive to inferior status individuals

Question 8

Adult behaviour- Authoritarian Personality

Answer 8

• Submissive to inferior status individuals;
• Dismissive to superior status individuals;
• Hostile

Question 9

Resisting Social Influence

Answer 9

This refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Question 10

Conformity

Answer 10

It’s how an individual accepts views another’s views.

Question 11

Binding Factors

Answer 11

Milgram proposed that if there are aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour, they are more likely to undergo agentic shift.
- Excusing yourself firm behaviour’s responsibility.-

Question 12

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 12

This suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.

This is justified by the individual’s position of power within the social hierarchy. If they are of a higher status than us we believe they have the potential to punish us socialised into this acceptance of authority from a young age and us so ingrained that we will obey event if it’s destructive authority.

Question 13

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) study- Legitimacy of authority

Answer 13

Legitimacy of the system - the extent to which a person is accepted as and authority in society. Eg. Officers don’t question captain.

Legitimacy of authority within the system - the extent to which a person is accepted as an authority figure in the particular setting/establishment.

Legitimacy of demands or ordered given - Acceptable area for someone to dictate over.

Question 14

Dispositional Factors

Answer 14

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importante of the individuals personalities. Such explanations are often contrasted with the situational explanations.

Question 15

Authoritarian Personality

Answer 15

A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially suspectable to obey people in authority. A submissive to this of higher individual and dismissive lower authority.
Eg.
- hostile to inferior status individuals;
- obedient to superior status individuals;
- Rigid in opinion and beliefs;
- Harsh and critical parents;

Question 16

Adorno study (1950) - Authoritarian Personality

Answer 16

Aim: to investigate that prejudice is the result of an individual’s personality type.

Procedure: Administrates the F-scale questionnaire to 2000 American ppts from all different ages and professions to measure traits of authoritarianism. They also conducted interviews about aspects of their childhood.

Results: identified a particular set of characteristics personality. Those with an authoritarian personality tend to be:
- Hostile to those who’re of inferior status to them but obedient to those of a hush her status;
- Fairly rigid in their opinions;
- Very traditional views;
Those that scored highly on the F-scale tended to report stricter upbringing. Their parents were more likely to be harsh and critical.

Conclusion: Adorno concluded that people who had these characteristics were more likely to categorise people in to “them” and “us” seeing their own group as superior.

Question 17

Childhood Experiences-Authoritarian Personality

Answer 17

• Strict, harsh and critical parents;
• Strict upbringing;
• Hostile parents - lead to being submissive to inferior status individuals

Question 18

Adult behaviour- Authoritarian Personality

Answer 18

• Submissive to inferior status individuals;
• Dismissive to superior status individuals;
• Hostile

Question 19

Resisting Social Influence

Answer 19

This refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.

Question 20

Conformity

Answer 20

It’s how an individual accepts views another’s views.

Question 21

Social Influence

Answer 21

How surrounding people can change other people.

Question 22

Conformity

Answer 22

To obey/to follow rules. Following the real or perceived influence of others to produce behaviour that is accepted by the social group.

Question 23

Types of conformity

Answer 23

(Shallow to deep level of conformity)
Compliance
Identification
Internalisation

Question 24

Compliance ( type of conformity)

Answer 24

The person conforms publicly but privately continues to disagree.
Short-term behaviour
Eg: a person might laugh among others but not find it funny.

Question 25

Identification (type of conformity)

Answer 25

The person conforms publicly and privately because they have identified with the group and feel a sense of membership’s group.
Temporary behaviour
Eg: a person might support a new football team every time they move towns.

Question 26

Internalisation (type of conformity)

Answer 26

The person conforms privately and publicly because they have internalised and accepted the views of the group.
Long-term behaviour
Eg: a person may become vegetarian due that their flat group is vegetarian.

Question 27

Explanation of conformity

Answer 27

There are 2 process models - Deutsch and Gerald
Normative social influence
Informative social influence

Question 28

Normative social influence

Answer 28

Want to be liked.

Want to be accepted by a group, the more likely we are to behave how we think they want us to behave.

Question 29

Informative social influence

Answer 29

Want to be right.

A person is unsure how to behave in a social situation therefore, they will look at others for guidance.

Question 30

Asch’ study- Compliance Study

Answer 30

Aim: to investigate the conformance in social groups.
Procedure: there was a group of people in a room. 1 was a participant, the others were acting. A person stood at the front with 3 different lines A,B, C- and a random line that would be the same side as 1 of the 3 named lines.
Results: the ppt began to conforme with the actors and gave the same answer as them, even though the ppt didn’t believe it.
Conclusion: Social groups conform with each other’s opinions to fit in.

Strength: Internal Validity - a controlled test took place beforehand to check that the lines were unambiguous. It provides support as it accurately tested conformity.

Question 31

Temporal validity

Answer 31

When a study or theory can be claimed to be true across different period of time.
It’s been investigated too long ago - Asch’ study

Question 32

Ecological Validity (Mundane Realism)

Answer 32

When a study could be seen as true in different settings.

Eg: how it relates to real life.

Question 33

Ethical Issues

Answer 33

Whether the procedures used in a study are seen as acceptable and treating the ppts in a ‘moral’ way.
Asch’ study - Deceiving due that ppt didn’t know that other people were acting.

Question 34

Ethnocentric

Answer 34

When a study or theory is on really true of one culture but we presume it is true of others.
Asch’ study - didn’t investigate the experiment with other cultures.

Question 35

Androcentric

Answer 35

When a study that only really applies to males is assumed to be true of females.
Asch’ study - only males as ppts

Question 36

Gynocentric

Answer 36

Female biased.

When a study that really only applies to females is assumes to be true on males.

Question 37

Normative Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 37

-Strength-
P: Research has supported the NSI explanation as to why people conform.
E: For example, Asch’s research demonstrates how individuals will conform with the majority on an unambiguous line comparison test (even when they know their response is incorrect) in order to be linked or in attempt to avoid standing out from the group.
E: this is a strength because it shows that the NSI explanation is a valid assumption as to why people conform with the majority for group approval.

Question 38

Normative Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 38

-Strength-
P: Furthermore, the pra tick value of this explanation has been highlighted in recent research emphasising the role of NSI in bullying.
E: For example, Garandeau and Cillessen (2006) have shown how groups with a low quality of interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by a skilful bully so that the victimisation of another child provides the group with a common goal creating pressure on all group members to comply.
E: This is a strength because the research illustrates that sometimes the desire for acceptance is so strong that it outweighs an individuals’ moral code, showing NSI’s assumption that people conform for group approval is valid.

Question 39

Normative Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 39

-Weakness-
P: The NSI explanation can be criticised for not acknowledging the importance of belonging to a group.
E: For example, many studies such as Sherif and Rohrer, they have shown how conformity to group norms can persist long after the group no longer exist.
E: This is a weakness because ppts in an experiment cannot fear group exclusion which implies that factors other than dependency on the group may be important as regards to whether or not an individual conforms.

Question 40

Informational Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 40

-Strengths-
P: Further research has supported the assumptions of the informational social explanation as regards to why people conform.
E: For example, Fein et al shown how judgements of candidate performance in US presidential debates could be influences be the knowledge of others’ reactions. Ppts saw what were supposedly the reactions of their fellow ppts on screen during the debate. This produced large shifts in ppts judgements of the candidates’ performance.
E: This is positive as the research demonstrates support for the informational explanation assumption demonstrating the power of informational influence in shaping opinion.

Question 41

Informational Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 41

-Strength-
P: Research as supported the suggestions of the ISI explanation as regards to why people conform.
E: For example, Sherif’s research conveys how the exposure to the other people’s beliefs (i.e. their estimates as regards to how far and in which direction to light spot moved) has an important influence on other ppt’s estimates especially when the ppts are uncertain about what to believe themselves.
E: This is a strength because the research supports the ISI explanation of conformity and the assumption that individuals will be influenced by members of majority who appear more informed than themselves.

Question 42

Situational Variables

Answer 42

Milgram’s Study ‘baseline study’ established a replicable method.
He could then use this results of the variations to place a numerical value on the rate of obedience.
He found that situational factors may explain the behaviour better than his original belief that behaviour was due to personality.
In the research he found several factors (all related to external circumstances rather than to personalities of ppts) that he believed influenced the level of obedience on the ppts.
- proximity;
- location;
- uniform;

Question 43

Social Psychological Explanation

Answer 43

These explanations concern the influences of others in an individual’s behaviour, rather than external factor.

Question 44

Agentic state

Answer 44

It’s a mental state where we feel no responsibility of our behaviour, as we feel like we are acting on the behalf of an authority figure. This allows us to ease our conscious and justify our behaviour by minimising our personal accountability. We still feel ‘moral strain’ ( anxiety) but we feel that we are powerless to defy the authority figure.

Question 45

Autonomous State ➡️ Agentic State

Agentic Shift

Answer 45

-Autonomous State- ➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️ -Agentic State
— Agentic Shift—

Autonomous State- we are free to behave according to our own principles.
Agentic State - We act against our own principles on behalf of someone else.
Agentic Shift - Milgram suggested this is because we perceive the person as a legitimate authority as they have a higher statues on the social hierarchy.

Question 46

Social support- Resisting social influence

2 explanations

Answer 46

1* In 1 of Asch’s variation he showed that the presence of a dissident (a confederate who didn’t conform) lead to decrease in the conformity levels in true ppts - this thought to be because the presence of a dissident gave the true ppts social support and made them feel more confident in their decision.

2* It also decreases obedience to authority.
In Milgram’s study 2 other ppts were also teachers but refused to obey. The presence of others who are seem to disobey the authority figure reduced the level of obedience to 10%.

Question 47

Locus of control

Answer 47

This term refers to how much control a person feels they have in their own behaviour. A person can either have an internal locus of control or an external locus of control.

People with a high internal locus of control (ILOC) perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and are therefore, more likely to take responsibility for the way they behave.

Question 48

Social Support - Evaluation

Answer 48

In Gamson et al study, resistance has higher levels when ppts are in groups than when they are independent. This means that in the study, 29 out of 33 groups of ppts (88%) revelled against helping an oil company. The groups had a high level of resistance and therefore, ppts are more unlikely to obey when they are in groups due that othe ppts support the idea of not obeying - whilst an independent ppt is more likely to obey for being on its own.

Question 49

LOC Evaluation

Answer 49

Research support the idea that individuals with an internal locus control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey. The study from Oliner& Oliner conveys that by interviewing non-Jewish survivors of WWII and compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish’s people from the Nazi’s, in comparison to those who hasn’t. It was found that 406 ‘rescuers’ were likely to have high internal locus of control, whilst 106 people were likely to be external due that they followed orders.Although, there are more factors that could change this.
Research supported the idea that concept of locus control, plays a limited role. The study from Rotter et al. found that LOC is only important in new situations - it has little influence in familiar situations where’re previous experiences are always more important. This suggests that locus of control can explain only a limited range of situations in which people might resist social influence. This means that locus of control isn’t as important a factor in resistance as some have suggested.

Question 50

Minority influence

Answer 50

This is a form of a social influence in which a minority rejects the established norm of the majority of group members and persuades the majority to move to the position of the minority.

Question 51

Conversion

Answer 51

Higher levels - Moscovici

Question 52

Internalisation

Answer 52

It’s the most likely outcome. Both public and private beliefs are changed in process.

Question 53

Flexibility

Answer 53

Showing that the friends ideas can be embedded into his.

Question 54

Commitment

Answer 54

Give a good and important reason; Information

Question 55

Consistency

Answer 55

Conveying that the reason means a lot to him and repeating it.

Question 56

The Snowball Effect

Answer 56

All 3 factors outlined make people think about the topic. If you hear something which you agree with that is what you already believe, it doesn’t make op and think but if you hear something new then you might think about it particularly if the view is consistent and passionate.

Over time increasing number of people switch from the majority viewpoint to minority position. They have become ‘converted’. The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion and this is called snow ball effect. Gradually, the minority view has become the majority view and change has occurred.

Question 57

Minority Influence - Study

Answer 57

Moscovici has done a blue-green Study. Investigated effects of a consistent minority on majority. He concluded that consistency is vital for minority influence to occur.

Blue-green experiment set up. There were 36 slides with shades of blue. Ppts had to state whether the colour was blue or green out loud. But confederates of Moscovici influenced the answers. The confederates answered green of the same time or at different times.

Green+blue = inconsistent Green+green= consistent

The confederates formed the minority because everyone could clearly see that te slides were actually blue but the responses of the 2 confederates influenced those of the 4 ppts. If the minority was consistent the percent green responses rose immediately.

Question 58

Social Crymptoamnesia - Perez et. Al 1995)

Answer 58

Over time, after the minority position has become the accepted norm by the majority, people forget the source of te original dissentiam minority and the changes that occurred to get there.

Question 59

Minority influence creates social change

Answer 59

1. Drawing attention to the issue - highlighting a concern in a very obvious way.
2. Consistency of position - Displaying an unswerving message and intent.
3. Deeper processing - Many people who simply accept the status quo start thinking further.
4. The argumentation principle (commitment) - Minorities take risks to further the cause.
5. The snowball effect - people start to switch from a majority position to a minority 1 & this gains momentum.
6. Social cryptoamnesia occurs (internalisation)- people accept the new social norm, forgetting where the original disagreement came from.

Question 60

Social Norms Interventions

Answer 60

This was proposed by Perkins and Berkowitz (1986).
If people perceive something to be the norm they will often change their behaviour to fit that norm. Behaviour is based more on the perceived norm than the actual norm. Eg. Social pressure on teenagers;

Campaigners can exploit this tendency for conformity by appealing to Normative Social Influence. Then try to address misperception that people have about what is the norm and what the actual norm is. Eg. ‘MOST OF US DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE’

Question 61

‘MOST OF US DON’T DRINK AND DRIVE’ study

Answer 61

This was a campaign designed by Montana university to try and reduce drink reducing drink driving in young adults aged 21 - 34. There were significantly more alcohol related crashes in this aged group. In a survey they found that 92% of respondents stated they believed the majority of their peers drove after drinking. In fact only 20.4% said they actually had ever done this. After the campaign, drink driving reduced by 13.7% compared to other places that didn’t run the campaign.

Question 62

Evaluation - Social change

Answer 62

Strength:
P: Research support for role of NSI in social change.

Question 63

Evaluation - Social change

Answer 63

Weakness:
P: Research into minority influence that explanations of social change are based on lacks ecological validity.

Question 64

Evaluation - Social change

Answer 64

Weakness:
P: the potential for minorities to influence social change is often limited because they are seen as ‘deviant’ in the eyes of the majority.

Question 65

Evaluation - Social change

Answer 65

Weakness:
P: The ‘boomerang effect’. Schultz et al (2007) stated the problem with social norms intervention is that as well as targeting individuals who have undesirable behaviour it is also received by those that have more desirable behaviour.

Question 66

Evaluation - Social change

Answer 66

Weakness:
P: Not all social norms interventions a e successful.

Question 67

Informational Social Influence - Evaluation

Answer 67

-Weakness-
P: ISI explanation can be criticised due to Sherif’s study.
E: For example, Cardwell et al suggests that Sherif’s study demonstrates how groups norms groups emerge and not necessarily the process of conformity (specifically internalisation). He suggests that majority influence means a majority influencing a minority who then conform to the majority view. In Sherif’s study there was no majority or minority group, simply a number of people who had different views.
E: This is a weakness because if Sherif’s study isn’t a true demonstration of conformity and internalisation then I cannot be used in support of ISI as an explanation of conformity.

Question 68

Zimbardo’s Study - Stanford Prison experiment

Answer 68

Aim: to investigate how people conform with roles of power.
Procedure: He gathered 24 undergraduate male students and paid 15$. The experiment took place at Stanford university’s basement. They created a prison by putting 3 beds in each office to be the cell and prison doors. The guards wore a uniform and mirrored glasses and the prisoners were stripped down, assigned with numbers and prisoner’s uniforms.
Results: the guards conformed to their roles by harassing prisoners, supported each other in violence and nobody stoop up against them. The prisoners also confirmed by being obedient to the guards.

Question 69

Zimbrado’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 69

P: could be considered ethnocentric.
E: Ppt in the Study were all American and students.
E: As all ppts were of a similar age, they are more likely to be rebel and also be prone to social influence. Other groups may act differently eg. Older people may be less likely to rebel.
L: therefore, we could say the findings do not generalise and aren’t representative.

Question 70

Zimbrado’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 70

P: Could be considered to have ethical issues.
E: Ppts in the study were given the right to withdraw and suffered from psychological harm.
E: However, ppts that tried to withdraw were talked out of it and they suffered from psychological harm.
L: Therefore, we could say that the findings don’t generalise due that ppts suffered from ethical issues.

Question 71

Zimbrado’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 71

P: Could be considered to have lack of ecological validity.
E: ppts in the study were placed in a prison that was made in a university’s basement.
E: Prisoners in a real life situation wouldn’t be treated as te ppts were.
L: Therefore, we could say that the study can’t extrapolate as it doesn’t represent a real life experience.

Question 72

Obedience

Answer 72

Acting in response to a direct order from an authority figure. The social influence takes the form of orders from authority. Always involves a direct attempt to control a person’s behaviour. Eg. War crime excuse of ‘following orders’.

Question 73

Milgram’s Study- Obedience experiment (1963)

Answer 73

Aim: to investigate obedience from a person in authority when it would result in pain and harm to another person.
Procedure: 40 men aged 20-50 men ppts were recruited by a newspaper advert, Yale University, a teacher ( naive ppt) and a learner (confederate) in experiment investigating “the effect of punishment on learning”. The learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes, the teacher read out the pairs of words to the confederate learner, if they got the answer wrong the teacher was instructed to give electric shocks and keep increasing the voltage (15V to 450V) this would be extremely painful but not dangerous. At 300V - 315V the confederate pounded the wall and didn’t make a sound to further questions (unconscious or dead?). The teacher was told that silence was treated as incorrect and socked further and given series of verbal prods by experiment to encourage them. The procedure finished when maximum voltage was reached. Then they were interviewed and de-hoaxed and asked how painful the thought shocks were and were told that the shocks were not real- the real purpose was to investigate obedience.
Results: Decent American men were capable to do horrific actions such as nazis. Majority of people are willing to obey to destructive orders. These people found it highly stressful.
Quantitative date: 100% ppts gave 300V +; 65% gave full 450V; pain rating 13.42/14;
Quantitative data: comments, protests, body language; 1 had a seizure, protested but continued shocking;

Question 74

Milgram’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 74

P: could be considered to lack validity.
E: the ppts were put in a made up environment to fit the experiment’s needs in Yale university.
E: Artificial environment.
L: Therefore, the study has low ecological validity. It can’t be extrapolated to real life.

Question 75

Milgram’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 75

P: the experiment took place as a laboratory experiment.
E: the ppts were put in a made up environment to fit the experiment’s needs in Yale university.
E: there were high controls that eliminated extraneous variables.
L: Therefore, the study would be easy to replicate in real life.

Question 76

Milgram’s Study - Evaluation

Answer 76

P: the experiment used data as supporting evidence.
E: the ppts were put in a made up environment to fit the experiment’s needs in Yale university, the data was collected regarding the actions of the ppts.
E: both types of data used made conclusions. Qualitative data such as protests and comments and quantitative data that 50% of ppts went full voltage of 450V.
L: Therefore, the study is considered to be highly in validity.
L: Therefore, the study would be easy to replicate in real life.