Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology Year 12 Content > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

1
Q

Internalisation

- type of conformity

A
  • accepts groups views & beliefs
  • agrees privately & publicly
  • permanent change (persists in absence of group)
  • opposite of compliance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Identification

- type of conformity

A
  • accept influence of others, as want to be associated with them
  • accept beliefs & values of group, but does so to be part of group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Compliance

- type of conformity

A
  • agrees publicly but NOT privately
  • superficial change/face value (stops when group pressure ceases)
  • opposite of internalisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Informational Social Influence (ISI)

- explanation for conformity

A
  • want to be correct/right
  • look to others to gain knowledge
  • cognitive process
  • occurs in ambiguous (not clear/difficult) situations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Normative Social Influence (NSI)

- explanation for conformity

A
  • want to be accepted & avoid social rejection/disapproval
  • look to others on how to behave
  • emotional process
  • can occur in unambiguous (clear/easy) situations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Strength of ISI

A
  • Lucas et al. (2006) asked students to answer easy & difficult maths problems
  • more conformity to incorrect answers when problem was difficult
  • people conform in situations where they don’t know answer, look to others and assume they know better than us & must be right
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Limitation of ISI

A
  • Asch (1955) found students were less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%)
  • Perrin & Spencer (1980) also found less conformity in students
  • knowledgeable & confident people are less influenced by majorities “right” answer
  • differences in how people respond to ISI
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Strength of NSI

A
  • Asch (1951) interviewed participants after line study, found they conformed to avoid social rejection (NSI)
  • when Asch asked participants to write answers conformity fell to 12.5%
  • supports participants own reports, to conform because of NSI
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Limitation of NSI

A
  • naffiliators have a greater need for social approval than others
  • McGhee & Teevan (1967) found naffilitator students were more likely to conform
  • can’t easily generalise NSI as an explanation of conformity to all people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Procedure

- conformity to social influence

A
  • 123 American male undergrads
  • example line segment, asked to match line segment to another line of same length
  • naïve participants originally informed it was a study of visual perception, so were deceived
  • naïve participants tested individually with 6-8 confederates (instructed to give incorrect answers)
  • on 12 ‘critical trials’ confederates gave wrong answer out of 18
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Findings

- conformity to social influence

A
  • naïve participants gave wrong answer 36.8% of time
  • 75% conformed at least once
  • when interviewed after, said conformed to avoid rejection
  • example of NSI
  • answer was unambiguous, so we know that they were conforming to fit in (NSI)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of gender & culture biased
- conformity to social influence

A
  • 123 American MALE undergrads, so study unreliable due to gender biased
  • no women tested so can’t generalise findings
  • undergrads meant all participants were same age
  • AMERICAN sample represents an individualistic (western) culture, so can’t be applied to collectivist (eastern) culture due to culture biased
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of not reflecting real life situation
- conformity to social influence

A
  • lacks mundane realism
  • reduces validity of research
  • participants may have been demonstrating demand characteristics (had worked out the aim of study and changed their behaviour accordingly)
  • cannot generalise findings, so low ecological validity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of being era independent

- conformity to social influence

A
  • conformity rates may have been much higher in 1950s than in 21st century
  • if conducted again results may differ from those of Asch’s at the time
  • reduces validity of research & findings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of being unethical

- conformity to social influence

A
  • participants informed it was a study of visual perception, so were deceived which is unethical
  • however, was necessary to understand natural conformity rates
  • to counter-act deception Asch debriefed participants
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Asch Line Study (1951) - Variables affecting conformity

- conformity to social influence

A
  • group size, with 3 confederates conformity rose to 31.8% & addition of confederates made little difference (peaks at 3)
  • unanimity, introduced truthful confederate to see if affected naïve participant, & presence of dissenter reduced conformity by 1/4, due to dissenter enabling naïve participant to behave more independently
  • task difficulty, increased difficulty by making lines more similar in length, conformity increased as ISI plays greater role when situation becomes more ambiguous (unclear/difficult)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Procedure

- conformity to social roles

A
  • set up mock prison @ Stanford Uni to test whether brutality of prison guards was result of sadistic personalities or created by the situation
  • recruited 24 male ‘emotionally stable’ students determined by psychological testing; randomly assigned role of guards or prisoners
  • to increase realism, ‘prisoners’ were arrested @ home & delivered to prison, blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused, issued uniform & id number
  • heavily regulated daily routines enforced by guards working in shifts (3 at a time)
  • de-individuation (lose sense of personal identity) prisoners names not used only id numbers, guards had special uniforms (wooden clubs, handcuffs, keys & mirrored shades); told they had complete power over prisoners, e.g. deciding when they could go to toilet
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Findings

- conformity to social roles

A
  • 2 days, prisoners rebelled (ripped uniforms, shouted, swore at guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers)
  • guards harassed prisoners (frequent head counts, sometimes @ midnight)
  • guards highlighted differences in social roles (created opportunities to enforce rules & punish slight misdemeanours)
  • guards took roles enthusiastically, threatened prisoners psychological & physical health
  • e.g. after rebellion, prisoners became subdued, anxious & depressed
  • e.g. 3 prisoners released early, showing signs of psychological disturbance
  • e.g. 1 prisoner hunger striked, guards force-fed & punished by putting him in “the hole” (tiny dark closet)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Conclusions

- conformity to social roles

A
  • simulation revealed the power of situation to influence people’s behaviour
  • guards, prisoners & researchers all conformed to their social roles within the prison
  • the more guards identified with their roles, the more brutal & aggressive their behaviour became
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Strength as researchers had some control over variables
- conformity to social roles

A
  • only emotionally stable participants recruited
  • randomly assigned roles of prisoner/guard
  • as roles were by chance, behaviour was due to the pressures of situation, not their personalities
  • control increases study’s internal validity, confident in drawing conclusions about influences of social roles on behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Limitation of lack of realism
- conformity to social roles

A
  • Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) suggest participants were play-acting, performances reflected stereotypes of how roles were supposed to behave
  • 1 guard based his role on character from film Cool Hand Luke
  • prisoners rioted because they thought that was what real prisoners did
  • however, Zimbardo’s data showed 90% of prisoners’ conversations were about prison life (simulation seemed real to them, increasing study’s internal validity)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Milgram (1963) - Aim

-original obedience study

A

-wanted to see whether people would obey a legitimate authority figure when given instructions to harm another human being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Milgram (1963) - Procedure

-original obedience study

A
  • recruited 40 male participants; aged 20-50; ranging in profession
  • participants informed study was on learning & punishment
  • confederate was always ‘learner’ & participant was ‘teacher’
  • experimenter wore a lab coat
  • learner strapped to chair in another room & wired with electrodes
  • teacher asked to administer increasingly severe electric ‘shocks’ to learner each time they made mistake matching word pairs
  • volts from 15-450
  • at 300volts, recording of learner pounded on wall & gave no response to next question; after 315volts no further response
  • participant teachers did not know learner was NOT receiving shock; believed ‘voice recording’ to be real
  • when participant teacher turned to experimenter for guidance, was given standard instructions “please continue”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Milgram (1963) - Findings

-original obedience study

A
  • no participant stopped administering shocks before 300 volts
  • 5 participants stopped at 300 volts
  • 65% participants continued to 450 volts!
  • observations (qualitative data) indicated participant teachers showed signs of extreme tension; e.g. sweating, trembling, biting lips, groaning, digging fingernails into hands; 3 participant teachers had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Milgram (1963) - Conclusions

-original obedience study

A
  • prior to study M asked 14 psychologists to predict naïve participant teachers’ behaviour; estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts; therefore findings were unexpected
  • discovered 65% of people would obey a legitimate authority figure when instructed to harm another human being
  • participants debriefed, assured their behaviour was normal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Milgram (1963) - Limitation

-original obedience study

A

-lacked internal validity
-Orne & Holland (1968) suggested participants guessed electric shocks were fake, therefore demonstrating demand characteristics
(worked out aim of study & changed their behaviour accordingly)
-however, Sheridan & King’s (1972) participants gave real ‘fatal’ shocks to a puppy; 54% of males & 100% of females; therefore obedience in M’s study might be genuine (70% of participants believed the shocks were genuine)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Milgram (1963) - Limitation of gender biased

-original obedience study

A
  • only used male participants
  • reduced reliability of study
  • means we can’t generalise findings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Milgram (1963) - Limitation of lacking mundane realism

-original obedience study

A
  • task itself does not reflect a real-life situation

- findings have no value in explaining obedience; reducing validity of research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Milgram (1963) - Limitation of participants showing demand characteristics
-original obedience study

A
  • participant teachers may have worked out aim of study & changed their behaviour accordingly
  • realised shocks were fake
  • reduces validity of findings
30
Q

Milgram (1963) - Strength

-original obedience study

A
  • good external validity
  • lab-based relationship between experimenter & participant teacher reflected real-life authority relationships
  • Hofling et al. (1966) found levels of obedience in nurses on hospital wards to unjustified demands of doctors were very high (21 out of 22 nurses obeyed)
  • therefore processes of obedience in M’s study can be generalised
31
Q

Milgram (1963) - Ethical Issues

-original obedience study

A
  • deception, participant teachers believed electric shocks were real
  • deception could be combatted with a debrief & follow up support
32
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Proximity
  • original obedience study
A

-physical closeness/distance of authority figure to person they are giving order to (e.g. physical closeness of ppt teacher to leaner or physical closeness of experimenter to ppt teacher)

33
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Proximity, how did Milgram test this?
  • original obedience study
A
  • original study ppt & learner in adjoining rooms so ppt teacher could hear learner but not see them
  • variation, ppt teacher & learner in same room
  • variation2, ppt teacher had to force learners hand onto ‘electroshock’ plate when learner refused to answer
  • variation3, experimenter left room & gave instructions to ppt teacher by telephone call
34
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Proximity, how did this affect obedience levels?
  • original obedience study
A
  • when ppt teacher & learner in same room, obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
  • when ppt teacher had to force hand of learner, obedience rate dropped further to 30%
  • when instructions to ppt teacher by telephone call, time proximity was reduced, obedience rate dropped to 20.5%; ppt also pretended to give shocks/gave weaker ones than were order as experimenter not watching them
35
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Uniform
  • original obedience study
A
  • people in position of authority have specific outfit symbolic of their authority
  • indicates who is entitled to expect our obedience
36
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Uniform, how did Milgram test this?
  • original obedience study
A
  • original study, experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority
  • variation, experimenter called away for inconvenient telephone call @ start of procedure; role of experimenter taken over by ordinary member of public (confederate) in everyday clothes
37
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Uniform, how did this affect obedience levels?
  • original obedience study
A
  • everyday clothes (instead of lab coat) of member of public (confederate) meant obedience rate dropped to 20%
  • lowest of variations
38
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Location
  • original obedience study
A
  • the place where an order is issued

- the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location

39
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Location, how did Milgram test this?
  • original obedience study
A
  • original study location was @ prestigious Yale University

- variation, changed location to a run-down building

40
Q

Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience

  • Location, how did this affect obedience levels?
  • original obedience study
A
  • in run-down building location experimenter had less authority
  • obedience rate dropped form 65% to 47.5%
41
Q

Agentic State

-explanation for obedience 1

A
  • occurs when we act on behalf of another person
  • M proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an ‘agent’ (someone who acts for or in place of another)
  • in agentic state a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions
42
Q

Autonomous State

A
  • opposite of agentic state
  • ‘autonomy’ means to be independent or free
  • so person in autonomous state behaves according to their own principles & feels responsible for their own actions
43
Q

Agentic shift

A
  • occurs when a person defers to the authority figure
  • shift from autonomy to an ‘agent’
  • M suggested this shift occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure; the person has power because of their position in the social hierarchy
44
Q

Hofling Study - Supporting Agentic State

A
  • 22 night nurses working in psychiatric hospitals in USA ; each got a phone call from someone pretending to be a doctor
  • ‘doctor’ instructed them to administer 20mg of particular drug to specified patient, however prescribed dosage was only 10mg
  • 21/22 nurses prepared to administer lethal dosage & were only prevented from doing so when experimenter intervened
  • IV = changing dose to lethal amount
  • DV = whether they obey (obedience to task)
45
Q

Legitimacy of Authority

-explanation for obedience 2

A
  • we obey people at top of social hierarchy e.g. policeman who hold authority
  • their authority is legitimate as it is agreed by society
  • a consequence is some people are granted power to punish others
  • this means legitimate authority can be used destructively e.g. ordering people to behave in callous, cruel, dangerous & stupid ways
46
Q

Bickman Study - Supporting Legitimacy of Authority

A
  • power of a uniform
  • study in New York
  • asked passers by to pick up rubbish, lend money to strangers for a parking ticket & stand on the other side of a bus stop sign
  • 1/2 time experimenter dressed in street clothes & other 1/2 dressed in security guard uniform
  • 92% lent money when he was in uniform & 49% when he was not
  • researchers believe uniform can be powerful social symbol of authority, suggesting obedience is greater to figures of authority
  • IV = changing uniform of person in authority/experimenter
  • DV whether they obey (obedience to task)
47
Q

Authoritarian Personality (AP)

  • explanation for obedience 3
  • definition
A

-distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values & belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority

48
Q

Would an Authoritarian Personality be dispositional or situational?
Explain why.

A

-dispositional as it is related to one’s personality attributes

49
Q

What did Adorno conclude about people with an Authoritarian Personality?

A
  • have exaggerated respect for authority & are submissive to it
  • express contempt for people of inferior social status
  • have conventional attitudes towards race & gender
  • conclusion: extreme respect for authority & contempt for ‘inferiors’
50
Q

How does an Authoritarian Personality originate?

A

-originates in childhood (e.g. overly strict parenting through extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards & severe criticism)

51
Q

What did Adorno develop? What did it do?

A
  • developed the F-scale

- used to measure the different components that make up an Authoritarian Personality

52
Q

Elms & Milgram (1966) - Authoritarian Personality

  • evaluation of Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience
  • support for link between AP & obedience
A
  • found that pts who scored higher on F-scale had been willing to administer bigger shocks in original Milgram experiment
  • suggests pts had a strict adherence to experimenter’s rules, leading to increased obedience, due to their AP type, so supports the explanation of obedience & findings become more valid
  • however this is a correlation between measured variables & so cannot establish a cause & effect relationship, can’t tell whether 2 factors directly relate, or whether other factors may also be influencing pts obedience, reducing validity
  • therefore, Adorno could not claim that harsh parenting style caused development of an authoritarian personality
53
Q

Elms & Milgram (1966) - Authoritarian Personality

  • evaluation of Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience
  • what did their research show?
A
  • showed many obedient pts did NOT have authoritarian parents, instead they had a good positive relationship with their parents
  • according to F-scale (tool to measure AP) these people should have authoritarian parents; however they don’t so can question credibility of F-scale as form of measurement for this
54
Q

What did Milgram conclude about situational factors & dispositional factors on obedience?

A

-concluded that situational factors (e.g. location, effects of uniform, & proximity) were more influential than dispositional factors (e.g AP traits)

55
Q

What is a dispositional explanation for obedience?

A

-authoritarian personality

56
Q

Social Support

-resistance to social influence; explanation 1

A
  • conformity is reduced by a dissenting peer (social support), the dissenter acts as a ‘model’
  • strength in numbers; increases confidence to follow their own conscience
  • effect is NOT long lasting (Asch’s research showed if dissenter starts conforming again, so does naïve participant)
  • obedience is reduced by 1 other dissenting partner, due to social support (Milgram’s research showed independent behaviour increased in the disobedient peer condition from 35% to 90%)
57
Q

Strength In Numbers - Milgram on Social Support

-a piece of research to describe the social support explanation

A
  • Milgram: more pts resisted orders if other pts present also refused to obey (pts tested in groups of 3, with 2 confederates, in turn refused to continue shocking the learner)
  • their defiance had a liberating effect; only 10% continued to 450Volts in this variation
  • therefore, people find it easier to stand up to authority if they have support from others, as they no longer take sole responsibility for rebelling
58
Q

Strength In Numbers - Asch on Social Support

-a piece of research to describe the social support explanation

A
  • found that pts were more likely to resist pressures to conform if 1 of confederates agreed with them
  • in a variation, Asch ensured 1 confederate agreed with naïve pts, to form a unanimous majority; conformity fell from 33% to 5.5%
  • having an ally, makes us think there are other equally legitimate ways of thinking
59
Q

Locus of Control (LOC)

-resistance to social influence; explanation 2

A
  • Rotter described internal vs external LOC; & developed Q’s to measure this
  • indicates how much personal control you believe you have over events in your life
  • aspects of one’s personality, dispositional
  • internals place control within themselves (believe things happen due to their own actions); externals place control outside themselves (believe things happen outside of their control)
60
Q

Locus of Control (LOC) - what do internals show?

-resistance to social influence; explanation 2

A
  • internals show greater resistance to social influence
  • people w/ internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey by displaying independent behaviour
  • take personal responsibility for their actions, so more likely to follow their own beliefs
  • are more self-confident, more achievement-orientated, have higher intelligence, & less need for social approval
  • these personality traits lead to greater resistance
  • if people feel in control of what happens to them, they are more likely to resist pressures to social influence
61
Q

Locus of Control (LOC) - what do externals show?

-resistance to social influence; explanation 2

A

-people with an external LOC are more likely to obey and conform to social influence

62
Q

Minority Influence

  • what does it do
  • name the 3 processes
A
  • a minority changes/influences the opinions of others through internalisation (both public behaviour & private beliefs are changed)
  • 3 processes: consistency, commitment & flexibility
63
Q

Minority Influence - Consistency

A
  • consistency in terms of the minorities argument, the argument must be stable, it cannot keep changing if it is to be deemed credible
  • means the minorities views gain more interest
  • synchronic consistency (people in the minority are all saying the same thing)
  • diachronic consistency (they’ve been saying the same thing for some time)
64
Q

Minority Influence - Commitment

A
  • commitment must be shown to be taken seriously, the minority must demonstrate complete dedication to their argument
  • helps gain attention (e.g through extreme activities that create risk to minority to demonstrate commitment to the cause)
65
Q

Minority Influence - Flexibility

A
  • flexibility is crucial; the minority cannot be rigid & forceful, they must show that they can compromise
  • should balance consistency & flexibility so don’t appear rigid
  • the minority should adapt their point of view & accept reasonable counter-arguments
66
Q

Minority Influence

-the snowball effect

A
  • the minority become the majority
  • over time, people may become ‘converted’ (switch from the minority to the majority)
  • the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion
  • gradually the minority view becomes the majority, so social change has occurred
67
Q

Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency

  • the blue-green slides
  • procedure
  • 3 conditions of study
A
  • 192 females
  • group of 6 viewed a set of 36 blue-green coloured slides varying in intensity, then stated whether the slides were blue or green
  • all slides blue, but varied in brightness
  • 3 conditions: confederates consistently said slides were green; confederates were inconsistent about colour of slides; a control group - no confederates
68
Q

Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency

  • the blue-green slides
  • findings
A
  • consistent minority condition: pts gave same wrong answer of green (adopting minority position) on 8.42% of trials, 32% gave same answer on at least one trial
  • inconsistent minority condition: agreement to minority fell to only 1.25% of time
  • control group: pts wrongly identified colour & said green 1/4 of time
69
Q

Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency

  • the blue-green slides
  • conclusion
A

-minority group had more influence when they were consistent with their argument (e.g. when they consistently said the slides were green)

70
Q

Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency

  • the blue-green slides
  • evaluation ???? NOT SURE IF THIS LINKS!
A
  • P-research supports the role of flexibility in ensuring a minority influence
  • E+E- Nemeth created a stimulated jury situation where group members discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to someone in a ski lift accident; when a confederate put forward alternative view & refused to change his mind, it was found to have no effect on majority; however when confederate compromised & showed some shift towards majority, it did have an influence on rest of group
  • L-this demonstrates that flexibility is an important factor for minority influence, minority groups will use this to their advantage by being open to compromise & be flexible in their argument to better help influence the majority

Psychology Year 12 Content (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions