Social Influence AO1 and AO3 Flashcards
Evaluate Asch’s research into conformity
Strengths
Research support
-Lucas et al found more conformity when harder maths problems
HOWEVER
-Conformity more complex, confident participants less conforming
Limitations
Artificial situation and task
-Participants knew it was a study, played along with trivial task
Limited application
-Only conducted on American men
Ethical issues
-Participants decieved
Outline Asch’s research
123 American men judged line lengths, confederates deliberately gave wrong answers
Naive participants conformed on 36.8% trials, 25% never conformed
Variations of group size, unanimity and task difficulty
What are the three types of conformity?
Internalisation, Identification and Compliance
What is internalisation?
Private and public acceptance of group norms
What is identification?
Change behaviour to be part of group identify with, may change privately too
What is compliance?
Go along with group publicly, no private change
What are the two explanations for conformity?
Information social influence (ISI) and Normative social influence (NSI)
Evaluate types and explanations for conformity
Strengths:
Research support for NSI
-When no normative group pressure (wrote answers), conformity decreased to 12.5% (Asch)
Research Support for ISI
-Participants relied on others answers to hard maths problems (Lucas)
HOWEVER
-Cannot separate ISI and NSI, dissented reduce power of NSI or ISI
Limitations
Individual differences in NSI
-nAffiliators want to be liked more, conform more
Is distinction useful?
-May not be useful, but research supports both
What is Informational social influence?
Conform to be right, assuming group knows better
What is normative social influence?
Conform to be liked/accepted by group
Outline Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles
Stanford Prison Experiment
Mock prison, 21 student volunteers who randomly were guards or prisoners
Conformity created through uniforms, instructions for behaviour
Guards became more brutal, rebellion put down, prisoners depressed
Stopped after 6 days
Particpants conformed to social roles
Evaluate Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles
Strengths
Control
-Random assignment, increased internal validity
Limitations
Lack of realism
-Play acted roles through media-derived stereotypes
HOWEVER
-Prisoners thought prison was real, 90% of conversations about prison
Exaggerates power of roles
-Only 1/3 of guards brutal, exaggerared conclusions
Alternative explanation
-Taking on roles due to active identification, not automatic
Outline Milgram’s research into obedience
American men gave fake electric shock to learner in response to instructions from experimenter
65% have highest shock of 450V, 100% went up to 300V, many showed signs of anxiety, sweating
Evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience
Strengths
Research support
-French TV show found 80% gave maximum shock, similar behaviour to Milgram
Limitations
Low internal validity
-Participants realised shocks fake, play acted, supported by Perry, tapes of participants had only 50% believing shocks real
Alternative interpretations
Haslam found participants didn’t obey prod 4 (You have no other choice but to continue), participants identified with scientific aims, not blind obedience
Ethical Issues
-Participants decieved
Outline research into the effect situational variables in obedience
Proximity, obedience 40% with teacher and learner in same room, 30% for touch proximity, distance affects obedience
Location, obedience 47.5% in run down office, higher in university setting, gave higher prestige
Uniform, obedience 20% when experimenter was ‘member of public’, uniform symbol of legitimate authority
Evaluate research into the effect of situational variables on obedience
Strengths
Research Support
-Bickman showed power of uniform in field experiment, confederates in different outfits, asked passers by to perform tasks, more likely to obey person dressed as security guard than jacket and tie
Cross Cultural Replication
-Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee, decreased proximity lead to decreased obedience
HOWEVER
-Most studies conducted in similar countries to US, not generalisable to other countries
Limitations
Low Internal Validity
-Some procedures controved, not genuine obedience, extra manipulation of variables
Danger of situational perspective
-Criticised as may give excuse/alibi for destructive behaviour, ‘just following orders’
Outline the situational explanation of agentic state for obedience
Agentic state: acting as an agent for another person
Autonomous state: free to act according to conscience
Switching between two is agentic shift
Binding factors: allow individual to ignore damaging effects of obedient behaviour, reduces moral strain.
Evaluate the situational explanation of agentic state for obedience
Strengths:
Research support
-Milgram’s resistant participant continues giving shocks when Experimenter took responsibility
Limitations:
A limited explanation
Cannot explain why Rank and Jacobson’s nurses and some of Milgram’s participants disobeys
Obedience Alibi
Police Battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively
Outline the situational explanation of legitimate authority for obedience
Legitimate authority, created by hierarchial nature of society, some entitled to expect obedience, learned in childhood
Destructive authority, problems arise when used in negative way
Evaluate the situational explanation of legitimacy of authority for obedience
Strengths:
Explains cultural differences
-Shock test conducted, in Australia 16% obeyed, but 85% obeyed in Germany, related to structure of society
Real world crimes of obedience
-Rank and Jacobson found disobedience to doctors but stronger heirarchy and obedience at My Lai, US Army
Limitations:
Cannot explain all (dis)obedience
-Rank and Jacobson’s nurses in heirarchial structure, but did not obey legitimate authority
Outline the Dispositional explanation for obedience
The Authoritarian Personality
Adorno described AP as extreme respect for authority, submissiveness, yet contempt for interfiors
Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents, displaced on scapegoats
Used F-scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
AP’s identify with strong people, fixed cognitive style, hold stereotypes/prejudices
Evaluate the Dispositional explanation for obedience
Strengths
Research Support
-Obedient participants had high F scores
HOWEVER
-Obedient participants also unlike authoritarians, such as not glorifying fathers or not experiencing unusual levels of punishment, complex
Limitations
Limited Explanation
-Can’t explain obedience across a whole culture
Political Bias
-Equated with right wing ideology, ignored left with authoritarianism
Flawed Evidence
-F scale is basis of AP explanation, flaws such as response bias, not useful
Outline research into minority influence
Consistency: if minority is consistent, attracts attention of majority over time
Commitment: personal sacrifices, attract attention and reinforce message
Flexibility: minority more convincing if accept some counterarguments
Explaining process of change: three factors make majority think more deeply about issue
Snowball effect, minority gathers force, majority influence
Evaluate research into minority influence
Strengths:
Research support for consistency
-Moscovici’s blue-green slides, Wood et al meta analysis
Research support for deeper processing
-Participants exposed to minority view resistsed conflicting view
HOWEVER
-real world majorities have more power than minorities, missing from research
Power of influence
-More people agree in private with minority, more agreement when writing down answers
Limitations
Artificial tasks
-Often trivial, tell little about real world influence
Outline research into social influence and social change
Lessons from minority influence research, powerful force for innovation and social change
Civil rights marches, influence involves drawing attention, consistency, deeper processing, augmentation (risks), snowball effect and social cryptomnesia (forgetting)
Lessons from conformity research, dissent breaks power of majority (Asch), normative social influence draws attention to what majority is doing
Lessons from obedience research, disobedient role models (Milgram), gradual commitement leads to change (Zimbardo)
Evaluate research into social influence and social change
Strengths
Research support for normative influences
-NSI valid explanation of social change, such as reducing energy consumption (Nolan et al)
HOWEVER
-normative influence does not always produce change (Foxcroft et al)
Minority influence explains change
-Minorities stimulate divergent thinking, broad, creative, more opinions
Limitations
Role of deeper processing
-Majority views processed more deeply than minority views, challenge central feature of minority influence
Barriers to social change
-resistance to social change as minorities seen negatively
Outline social support in resistance to social influence
Resisting conformity, conformity reduced in presence of dissenters from group, even wrong answers break unanimity of majority (Asch)
Resisting obedience, decreases in presence of disobedient peer who acts as model to follow, obedience in Milgram dropped from 65% to 10%
Evaluate social support in resistance to social influence
Strengths
Real world research support
-Having ‘buddy’ resists peer pressure to smoke (Albrecht et al)
Research support for dissenting peers
-Obdience to an order from oil company fell when in group
Social support explanation
-Resistance lower (36% to 64%) when confederate had poor eyesight
Outline locus of control in resistance to social influence
LOC is sense of what directs events in our lives, internal or external source
LOC continuum, high internal at one end and high external at other
Resistance to social influence, internals can resist social influence, more confident, less need for approval
Evaluate locus of control in resistance to social influence
Strengths
Research support
-Internals less likely to fully obey in Milgram type procedure
Limitations
Contradictory evidence
-People more independent yet more external
Limited role
-Only applies to new situations
What is social cryptomnesia?
This is part of the process of minority influence which takes place after the snowball effect. It describes how people have a memory that social change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened.
