Social Influence: Evaluation Flashcards
Types of Conformity AO3
- difficulties distinguishing between compliance and internalisation: assumed publicly agreeing with majority yet disagreeing in private must be compliance, acceptance could dissipate due to forgetting or getting new info
+ compliance lab study: Asch’s ps said conformed to fit in
+ internalisation lab study: Sherif (1935) found ps answers converged towards group norm even when group not present, ps estimated distance of light movement individually then as group then individually, 1: fairly stable but ranged, 2: converged, 3: converged
Asch’s Research into Conformity AO3
+ controlled environment: in lab, high control over extraneous variables, easier to demonstrate cause and effect, possibility ps going along with demands, showing demand characteristics, artificial task, lacked mundane realism
+ real world application: advertising, use bandwagon effect, people buy what peers reccommend to fit in, Neilson Company Study (2000) found 90% trust peers opinions of products in survey of 25,000 from 50 countries
- lacks temporal validity: in 1950s, mccarthyism anti communist movement where people afraid to go against conformity, conformity levels high, Perrin and Spencer (1980) recreated in UK and found 1 conforming response in 396 trials with science and engineering students
- lacks population validity: only men, suggested women more conformist as more concerned about being accepted (Neto 1995), all from US, individualist culture, conformity rates higher in collectivist cultures
Zimbardo’s Research on Conformity to Social Roles AO3
- lack of realism: Banuaziz and Movahedi (1975) agrue that participants’ behaviour due to demand characteristics, presented details to students who hadn’t heard of it and majority guessed purpose
+ ethical issues: ethics committee approved, no deception, told human rights suspended, weren’t allowed to leave unless extreme reactions, psychologically harmed
+ explains real life prison violence: parallels to Nazi Germany, guards look to others and influenced by behaviour, could be used to excuse and minimise actions - no replications: Orlando (1973) set up mock psychiatric ward where staff members volunteered to be patients, people conformed to role, ethical issues as ps felt frustrated, anxious, despairing and lost identity
Milgram’s Research on Obedience AO3
+ research support: Hofling (1966) arranged nurse to receive call from unknown doctor asking to administer unknown drug, if obeyed would be breaking rules, 21/22 obeyed, Rank and Jacobsen (1977) replicated with common drug at 3x reccommended, 2/18 obeyed
+ internal validity: 75% of ps in post study interviews believd shocks real, Coolican (1996) agreed as videos shows ps experiencing real distress, in replication by Rosenhan (1969) nearly 70% believed
- ethically dubious: Baumrind (1964) claimed he put ps under emotional strain causing unjustifiable damage, 84% said they were glad to have taken part
- cultural variations: lower in Australia 1974 (40% in males, 15% in females), higher in Germany 1971 (85% in males)
Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority AO3
+ as explains bystander behaviour: Fennis and Aarts (2012) showed reducing personal control resulted in bystander apathy and greater obedience to authority
+ la research support: Tarnow (2000) studied aircraft accidents in USA where flight crew actions contributing factor, found excessive dependence on captain’s authority in over half
- as better explained as ‘plain cruelty’: Milgrams ps may used situation to express sadistic tendencies, SPE guards inflicted escalating cruelty without authority
- la used to justify harm: when directed by la figire to engage in immoral actions people willing no matter how destructive
Dispositional Explanation for Obedience (Authoritarian Personality) AO3
- correlational research: can’t establish cause and effect, could be third factor, Middendorp and Meloen (1990) found less educated more authoritarian, Milgram found ps with lower education more obedient
- doubt in sufficience: Milgram’s variations suggest situation important factor, location (48%), proximity (40%)
- f-scale politically biased: measures tendency to right wing ideology, Christie and Jahoda (1954) argue extreme right and left wing have commonalities, both emphasise importance of obedience
- f-scale methodologically flawed: worded in confirming direction, if agree rated as authoritarian, might be response bias, could be ‘acquiescers’ who have tendency to agree
Resistance to Social Influence (Social Support & Locus of Control) AO3
+ real life applications for ss: 1943 German women protested in Rosenstrasse where Gestapo were holding 2,000 Jewish men, Gestapo threatened to open fire, women didn’t move and Jews set free, illustrates Milgram’s research of presence of disobedient peers gave p confidence to resist
+ supporting reseach for lc: Miller (1975) told to give themselves shocks, social status of experimenter manipulated, external ps more obedient to high bureacratic authoirty, internals not affected by social status
- ss can’t be only explanation: some disobey or refuse to conform without ss or allies, alternative view that resistance is dispositional eg lc
- refuting research for lc: meta analysis of lc studies by Twenge et al (2004) found young americans increasingly believed fate determined more by luck (external), data also showed become more obedient
Minority Influence AO3
+ flexibility research support: Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) conducted mock jury with discussions on compensation, when confederate refused to change position no effect, when compromised did exert influence, influence only evident in those who shifted late than earlier
+ real life application: behavioural styles inform best way to behave to exert influence, eg minority of vegans in early 2000s kept consistent and committed
- reliance on artificial tasks and stimuli: lasks mundane realism, doesn’t reflect scenarios within which minority groups would act irl
- ideas of minority doesn’t lead to greater processing: Mackie (1987) argues tend to believed majority share similar beliefs to ours, if majority express different view we consider carefully, tend not to waste time trying to process why minority different
Role Social Influence Processes in Social Change AO3
+ minorites perceived as ‘deviant’: members of majority avoid aligning with minority, message has little impact, focus of attention on source rather than message
+ research support for majority: Nolan et al (2008) found in San Diego ps more likely to reduce energy usage if informed other residents do instead of being told to
- social norms approach doen’t always work: DeJong et al (2009) tested effectiveness to drive down alcohol use in 14 college sites, surveys conducted at beginning and 3 years after, students in social norms condition didn’t show lower perceptions of student drinking levels or report lower self alcohol consumption
- minority influence very gradual: strong tendency to conform to majority position, more likely to maintain status quo than engage in social change
Explanations for Conformity AO3
+ research support for ISI: Lucas et al (2006) asked students for answers to math problems either easy or difficult, greater conformity to incorrect aswers when more difficult, true for ps who rated maths ability as poor
+ real life application for NSI: can change behaviour through social norms intervention, ‘Most of Us’ campaign
- individual differences for ISI: Perrin and Spencer (1980) conducted study with engineering students confident in precision, in group confederates gave incorrect answer, very little conformity
- individual differences for NSI: nAffiliators have greater need for affiliation to group so more likely to conform, McGhee and Teevan (1967) found students high in need of affiliation more likely to be conformist
Variables Affecting Conformity AO3
+ real world applications: in schools when pairing misbehaving children with well-behaved, misbehaving conform or well-behaved no longer, jurors, one goes against view or majoirty others may not conform
- problems with determining effect of group size: Bond (2005) suggests limitation is studies only use limited range of majority sizes, most studies after Asch have used his procedure and have 3, no use greater than 9, typicaaly 2-4
Situational Variables Affecting Obedience AO3
+ research support for uniform: Durkin and Jeffery (2000) asked children 5-9 who able to make arrest, selected man currently wearing police uniform
- refuting research for proximity: 1942 Reserve Police Battalion 101 received order for mass killing of Jews, offered other tasks, only small minority took up offer
- high levels not suprising for location: Fromm (1973) claims because ps knew it was experiment more likely to obey, 35% disobedience more suprising, real life obedience more difficult and time consuming to achieve
