Social Influence Flashcards
Internalisation
- type of conformity
- accepts groups views & beliefs
- agrees privately & publicly
- permanent change (persists in absence of group)
- opposite of compliance
Identification
- type of conformity
- accept influence of others, as want to be associated with them
- accept beliefs & values of group, but does so to be part of group
Compliance
- type of conformity
- agrees publicly but NOT privately
- superficial change/face value (stops when group pressure ceases)
- opposite of internalisation
Informational Social Influence (ISI)
- explanation for conformity
- want to be correct/right
- look to others to gain knowledge
- cognitive process
- occurs in ambiguous (not clear/difficult) situations
Normative Social Influence (NSI)
- explanation for conformity
- want to be accepted & avoid social rejection/disapproval
- look to others on how to behave
- emotional process
- can occur in unambiguous (clear/easy) situations
Strength of ISI
- 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
Limitation of ISI
- 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
Strength of NSI
- 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
Limitation of NSI
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Procedure
- conformity to social influence
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Findings
- conformity to social influence
- 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)
Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of gender & culture biased
- conformity to social influence
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of not reflecting real life situation
- conformity to social influence
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of being era independent
- conformity to social influence
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Limitation of being unethical
- conformity to social influence
- 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
Asch Line Study (1951) - Variables affecting conformity
- conformity to social influence
- 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)
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Procedure
- conformity to social roles
- 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
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Findings
- conformity to social roles
- 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)
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Conclusions
- conformity to social roles
- 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
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Strength as researchers had some control over variables
- conformity to social roles
- 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
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973?) - Limitation of lack of realism
- conformity to social roles
- 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)
Milgram (1963) - Aim
-original obedience study
-wanted to see whether people would obey a legitimate authority figure when given instructions to harm another human being
Milgram (1963) - Procedure
-original obedience study
- 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”
Milgram (1963) - Findings
-original obedience study
- 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’
Milgram (1963) - Conclusions
-original obedience study
- 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
Milgram (1963) - Limitation
-original obedience study
-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)
Milgram (1963) - Limitation of gender biased
-original obedience study
- only used male participants
- reduced reliability of study
- means we can’t generalise findings
Milgram (1963) - Limitation of lacking mundane realism
-original obedience study
- task itself does not reflect a real-life situation
- findings have no value in explaining obedience; reducing validity of research
Milgram (1963) - Limitation of participants showing demand characteristics
-original obedience study
- participant teachers may have worked out aim of study & changed their behaviour accordingly
- realised shocks were fake
- reduces validity of findings
Milgram (1963) - Strength
-original obedience study
- 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
Milgram (1963) - Ethical Issues
-original obedience study
- deception, participant teachers believed electric shocks were real
- deception could be combatted with a debrief & follow up support
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Proximity
- original obedience study
-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)
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Proximity, how did Milgram test this?
- original obedience study
- 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
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Proximity, how did this affect obedience levels?
- original obedience study
- 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
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Uniform
- original obedience study
- people in position of authority have specific outfit symbolic of their authority
- indicates who is entitled to expect our obedience
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Uniform, how did Milgram test this?
- original obedience study
- 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
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Uniform, how did this affect obedience levels?
- original obedience study
- everyday clothes (instead of lab coat) of member of public (confederate) meant obedience rate dropped to 20%
- lowest of variations
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Location
- original obedience study
- the place where an order is issued
- the relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Location, how did Milgram test this?
- original obedience study
- original study location was @ prestigious Yale University
- variation, changed location to a run-down building
Milgram (1963) - Variables Affecting Obedience
- Location, how did this affect obedience levels?
- original obedience study
- in run-down building location experimenter had less authority
- obedience rate dropped form 65% to 47.5%
Agentic State
-explanation for obedience 1
- 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
Autonomous State
- 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
Agentic shift
- 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
Hofling Study - Supporting Agentic State
- 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)
Legitimacy of Authority
-explanation for obedience 2
- 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
Bickman Study - Supporting Legitimacy of Authority
- 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)
Authoritarian Personality (AP)
- explanation for obedience 3
- definition
-distinct personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values & belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
Would an Authoritarian Personality be dispositional or situational?
Explain why.
-dispositional as it is related to one’s personality attributes
What did Adorno conclude about people with an Authoritarian Personality?
- 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’
How does an Authoritarian Personality originate?
-originates in childhood (e.g. overly strict parenting through extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards & severe criticism)
What did Adorno develop? What did it do?
- developed the F-scale
- used to measure the different components that make up an Authoritarian Personality
Elms & Milgram (1966) - Authoritarian Personality
- evaluation of Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience
- support for link between AP & obedience
- 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
Elms & Milgram (1966) - Authoritarian Personality
- evaluation of Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience
- what did their research show?
- 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
What did Milgram conclude about situational factors & dispositional factors on obedience?
-concluded that situational factors (e.g. location, effects of uniform, & proximity) were more influential than dispositional factors (e.g AP traits)
What is a dispositional explanation for obedience?
-authoritarian personality
Social Support
-resistance to social influence; explanation 1
- 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%)
Strength In Numbers - Milgram on Social Support
-a piece of research to describe the social support explanation
- 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
Strength In Numbers - Asch on Social Support
-a piece of research to describe the social support explanation
- 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
Locus of Control (LOC)
-resistance to social influence; explanation 2
- 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)
Locus of Control (LOC) - what do internals show?
-resistance to social influence; explanation 2
- 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
Locus of Control (LOC) - what do externals show?
-resistance to social influence; explanation 2
-people with an external LOC are more likely to obey and conform to social influence
Minority Influence
- what does it do
- name the 3 processes
- a minority changes/influences the opinions of others through internalisation (both public behaviour & private beliefs are changed)
- 3 processes: consistency, commitment & flexibility
Minority Influence - Consistency
- 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)
Minority Influence - Commitment
- 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)
Minority Influence - Flexibility
- 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
Minority Influence
-the snowball effect
- 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
Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency
- the blue-green slides
- procedure
- 3 conditions of study
- 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
Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency
- the blue-green slides
- findings
- 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
Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency
- the blue-green slides
- conclusion
-minority group had more influence when they were consistent with their argument (e.g. when they consistently said the slides were green)
Moscovici et al. (1969) - Consistency
- the blue-green slides
- evaluation ???? NOT SURE IF THIS LINKS!
- 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
