Social Influence - P1 Flashcards

Question

What were the Ethical Issues of Zimbardo's prison experiment? - AO3

Answer 1

Followed basically none of the rules of ethics = consent, deception, the right to leave, confidentiality, protection from harm (physiological and physical), and a debrief at the end.

Answer 2

Stanley Milgram recruited 40 American male participants, supposedly for a study of memory

Answer 3

- Each participant arrived at Milgram's lab and drew lots for their role - A confederate, (‘Mr. Wallace’) was always the ‘Learner’ while the true participant was the teacher - An experimenter (another confederate) wore a lab coat - The teacher could hear, but not see the learner

Answer 4

- The teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time he made a mistake on a task. The shocks, increased in 15 volts, steps up to 450 volts - The shocks were fake, but the shock machine was labelled to make them look increasingly severe - If the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue

Answer 5

- 12.5% (five participants) stopped at 300 volts - 65% continue to 450 volts, the highest level - Observations (Qualitative data) - participants showed signs of extreme tension. Three had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’

Answer 6

- Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict how they thought the naïve participants would respond. It's estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 votes (so the baseline findings were unexpected) - After the study, participants were debriefed. Follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated

Answer 7

- We obey legitimate authority, even if it means that behaviour causes harm to someone else. - Certain situational factors encourage obedience (Milgram investigated these)

Answer 8

One strength is that replications have supported Milgram's research findings - In a French TV documentary/ Game Show, contestants were paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) - Beauvois at al. (2002) 80% gave the maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was like that of Milgram's participants e.g. many signs of anxiety - This supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority

Answer 9

One limitation is that Milgram’s study lacked internal validity - Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants guessed the shocks were fake. So they were ‘play-acting’ - This was supported by Parry's discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real - This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics

Answer 10

- However, Sheridan and King's (1972) participants gave real shocks to a puppy; 54% of males and 100% females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock - This suggests the obedience in Milgram study might be genuine

Answer 11

One limitation is that the findings are not due to blind obedience - Haslam et al. (2014) found that every participant given the first three prods obeyed the experimenter, but those given the 4th prod disobeyed - According to Social Identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research, but the 4th prod required blind obedience - This shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific games and not as blind obedience to authority

Answer 12

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming

Answer 13

- The participants in this study were deceived, e.g. they thought that the shocks were real. Milgram dealt with this by debriefing the participants. - Baumrind (1964) felt this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers, e.g.no informed consent possible - Therefore research can damage the reputations of psychologists + their research in the eyes of the public

Answer 14

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour, such as proximity, location, and uniform. The alternative is dispositional variables, where behaviour is explained in terms of personality

Answer 15

The physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving an order to. Also refers to the physical closeness of the (Teacher) to the victim (Learner) in Milgram’s studies.

Answer 16

The place where an order is issued. The relevant factor that influences obedience is the status or prestige associated with the location.

Answer 17

People in positions of authority often have a specific outfit that is symbolic of their authority, for example, police officers and judges. This indicates that they are entitled to expect our obedience.

Answer 18

- In the baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. - In the proximity variation, Teacher + Learner were in the same room and the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%. - In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher forced the Learner’s hand onto a shock plate. The obedience rate was 30%. - In the remote instruction variation, the Experimentar left the room and gave instructions by telephone. The obedience rate was 20.5% and the participants often pretended to give shocks. - Explanation - decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. - For example, when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated, the Teacher was less aware of the harm done, so was obedient.

Answer 19

- This study was conducted in a rundown building, rather than at the prestigious Yale university (as in the baseline) - Obedience dropped to 47.5% - Explanation - obedience was higher in the university because the settling was legitimate and had authority (obedience was expected)

Answer 20

- In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat - a kind of uniform - In one variation, he was called away by an ‘inconvenient’ phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ in everyday clothes - Obedience fell to 20%, the lowest of these variations - Explanation - a uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has a less right to expect obedience.

Answer 21

- One strength is research support for the influence of situational variables. - Beckman's 1974 Confederates dressed in different outfits (jacket, tie, milkman, security guard) and issued demands (e.g. pick up the litter) to people on the streets of New York City - People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’, than the jacket/tie confederate - This shows that the situational variables, such as a uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

Answer 22

- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees - And 90% obedience and obedience fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present) - This shows that Milgram's findings are not limited to American males, but are valid across cultures.

Answer 23

- However, Smith and Bond (1998) note that most replications took place in societies (e.g. Spain, Australia), culturally not that different from the US. - Therefore, we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all (or most) cultures

Answer 24

- Orne + Holland (1968) suggested the variations (compared to the baseline study) were even more likely to trigger a suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation - In the variation where the Experimenter was replaced by a ‘member of the public’, even Milgram recognised this was so contrived that some participants may have worked out - Therefore, it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and play acted (i.e. were influenced by demand characteristics)

Answer 25

- Agentic State - Legitimacy of Authority

Answer 26

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.

Answer 27

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.

Answer 28

- Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an ‘agent’, someone who acts for or in place of another - In an agentic state, a person feels no personal responsibility for their actions

Answer 29

- ‘Autonomy’ means to be independent or free. - So a person in an autonomous state behaves according to their principles and feels responsible for their actions

Answer 30

- The shift from autonomy to being an agent is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure - This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy

Answer 31

- Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damage in effects of their behaviour and reduce the ‘moral strain’ they feel - Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they're doing to victims

Answer 32

- Most societies are structured hierarchically - People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. e.g. parents, teachers, police officers, nightclub bouncers

Answer 33

- The power that authorities wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society - Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly

Answer 34

- People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others - We give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly - We learn to accept authority during childhood (parents, teachers, etc.)

Answer 35

History has shown that some leaders (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) use legitimate authority, destructively ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways

Answer 36

One strength is that the agentic state explanation has researched support - Most of Milgram's participants asked the Experimenter ‘who is responsible if Mr Wallace, the learner, is harmed?’ - When the Experimenter replied, ‘I'm responsible’ the participants went through the procedure quickly without objecting - This shows participants acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour

Answer 37

One limitation is the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings - For example, Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose - The doctor was an authority figure, but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into an agentic state. the same is true for some of Milgram's participants - This shows the agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations

Answer 38

One strength is legitimacy can explain cultural differences - Research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority - For example, 16% of Australian women obeyed (Kilham and Mann 1971) 85% of German participants did (Mantel 1971) - This shows the authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some countries, reflecting upbringing

Answer 39

One limitation is legitimacy cannot explain all (dis)obedience - People may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure - For example, most of Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram's participants - this suggests that innate tendencies towards (dis)obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority

Answer 40

Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality (i.e. their disposition). Such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations

Answer 41

A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority. Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors

Answer 42

- Adorno et al. (1950) believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder, and tried to find its causes in the individuals personality - High obedience is pathological

Answer 43

Adorno et al. concluded that people with an authoritarian personality, especially obedience to authority. They: - Have exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it - express contempt for people of inferior social status Authoritarians tend to follow orders and view ‘other’ groups as responsible for society's ills

Answer 44

- Authoritarian personality forms in childhood through harsh parenting - extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism. - It is also characterised by conditional love. Parents’ love depends entirely on how their child behaves

Answer 45

- These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they can't express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear reprisals - Feelings are displaced onto others who are weaker - this is scapegoating. This is a psychodynamic explanation

Answer 46

- The study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans

Answer 47

- Several scales were developed, including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale; Where statements were rated on a scale one to six, where six = strongly agree)

Answer 48

- Authoritarians who scored high on the F-scale and other measures identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the weak - They were conscious of their own and others’ status, showing excessive respect interference to those of higher status - Authoritarian people also had a cognitive style where there was no ‘fuzziness’ between categories of people with fixed and distinctive stereotypes (prejudices) and other groups

Answer 49

One strength is evidence that authoritarians are obedient - Elms + Milgram (1966) interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram’s original obedience studies - they scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants - this suggests that obedient people may share many of the characteristics of people with an Authoritarian personality

Answer 50

- however, subscales of the F-scale shows obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians. E.g. they didn’t experience high levels of punishment in childhood - this suggests a complex link + means authoritarianism isn’t a useful predictor of obedience

Answer 51

One limitation is authoritarianism can’t explain a whole country’s behaviour - millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient + anti-Semitic behaviour - but can’t all have had the same personality - it seems unlikely the majority of Germany’s population had an Authoritarian personality. A more likely explanation is Germans identified with the Nazi state - therefore social identity theory may be a better explanation

Answer 52

Another limitation is that the F-scale is politically biased - Christie + Jahoda (1954) suggest the F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology - but right-wing + left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority - therefore Adorno’s theory isn’t a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism, i.e. it is politically biased

Answer 53

Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority - this ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors

Answer 54

It is the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same - these people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

Answer 55

Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. - Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control). - Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control)

Answer 56

- social support - locus of control

Answer 57

- Asch’s research showed that the dissenter doesn’t have to give the ‘right’ answer - simply someone else not following the majority frees others to follow their own conscience. The dissenter acts as a ‘model’ - the dissenter shows the majority is no longer unanimous

Answer 58

- Milgram’s research - obedient behaviour greatly decreased in the disobedient peer condition (from 65% to 10%) - the participant may not followed the disobedient peer but dissenter’s disobedience frees participant to act from their own conscience - a disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure

Answer 59

- described internals vs external LOC - internals place control with themselves - externals place control outside themselves

Answer 60

LOC isn’t just being internal or external - there’s a scale from one to the other + people differ in their position on it - high internals at one end + high externals at the other, low internals + low externals lie in-between

Answer 61

- Internals show greater resistance to social influence - People with internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey

Answer 62

(1) if someone takes personal responsibility for their actions (good or bad) they’re more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs (2) people with high internal LOC are more confident, more achievement-oriented + have higher intelligence; traits that lead to greater resistance - (also traits of leaders, who’ve less need for social approval)

Answer 63

One strength is evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity - in programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke, social support was given by an older ‘buddy’ (Albrecht et al. 2006) - these adolescents were less likely to smoke at the end of the programme than a control group who didn’t have a buddy - this shows social support can help young people resist social influence in real-world situations

Answer 64

Another strength is evidence for the role of support for dissenting peers - Gamson et al. (1982) groups asked for give evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign - 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders, much higher than in Milgram’s studies - this shows how supporter can undermine legitimacy of authority + reduce obedience

Answer 65

One strength is evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience - Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study + measured whether participants were internal or externals - 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level (showed greater resistance). Only 23% of externals didn’t continue - therefore resistance partly related to LOC, increasing validity of this explanation disobedience

Answer 66

One limitation is not all research supports the role of LOC in resistance - Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years (1960-2002), showing people have become more independent but also more external - this is surprising - if resistance was linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal - therefore LOC may not be a valid explanation of resistance to social influence

Answer 67

A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours - leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed + public behaviours

Answer 68

Minority influence leads to internalisation - both public behaviour + private beliefs are changed - three processes - consistency, commitment, flexibility

Answer 69

Minority influence is most effective if minority keeps same views, both overtime + between all individuals that form the minority - this is effective as it draws attention to minority view, makes majority rethink their own views

Answer 70

- synchronic consistency; people in minority are all saying the same things - diachronic consistency; they’ve been saying the same thing for some time

Answer 71

Minority influence is more powerful if minority demonstrates dedication to their position, e.g. making sacrifices - This is effective as it shows minority isn’t acting out of self-interest

Answer 72

Relentless consistency could be counter-productive if seen by majority as unbending + unreasonable - therefore minority influence is more effective if minority show flexibility by accepting possibility of compromise

Answer 73

- Individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new/unfair - snowball effect - overtime, more people become ‘converted’. This is a switch from minority to majority - the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - gradually minority view becomes the majority + social change has occurred

Answer 74

One strength is research supporting consistency - Moscovici et al. (1969) found a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion - Wood et al. (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies + found that minorities seen as being consistent, were most influential - This confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence

Answer 75

Another strength is research showing role of deeper processing - Martin et al. (2003) gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint + measured attitudes. Then they heard an endorsement of view from either a minority or majority. Finally heard a conflicting view, attitudes measured again - Participants were less willing to change their opinions to the new conflicting view if they had listened to a minority group than if they listened to a majority group - This suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed + had a more enduring effect

Answer 76

- in research studies (Martin et al.) minority/majority groups distinguished in terms of numbers. But there is more to majorities/minorities than just numbers (e.g. power, status, commitment) - this means research studies are limited in what they tell us about real-world minority influence

Answer 77

One limitation is minority influence research often involves artificial tasks - Moscovici et al.’s task was identifying the colour of a slide, far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in the real world - In jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important, maybe a matter of life or death - Findings of studies lack external validity + are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-world situations

Answer 78

The process by which individuals + groups change each other’s attitudes + behaviours - includes conformity, obedience + minority influence

Answer 79

This occurs when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs + ways of doing things

Answer 80

- Drawing attention - Consistency - Deeper processing - Augmentation principle - Snowball effect - Social cryptomnesia

Answer 81

Segregation in 1950s America - Places such as certain schools and restaurants in the South and states were exclusive to whites. Civil rights marches drew attention to the situation by providing social proof of the problem

Answer 82

The activism meant that many people who had accepted the status quo began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it

Answer 83

People took part in the marches on a large scale. Even though it was a minority of the American population, they displayed consistency of message and intent

Answer 84

‘Freedom Riders’ were both white as well as black people who boarded buses in the South to challenge separate seating for black people. Many were beaten. The personal risk strengthened (augmented) their message

Answer 85

All rights activists (e.g. Martin Luther King) gradually got the attention of the US government. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Change happens bit by bit just as a rolling snowball grows as it gathers more snow

Answer 86

Social change came about, but some people have no memory (cryptomnesia) of the events leading to that change

Answer 87

- Dissenters make social change more likely - Normative social influence (NSI)

Answer 88

Asch's research - variation where one confederate always gave correct answers. This broke the power of the majority, encouraging others to dissent. This demonstrates potential for social change.

Answer 89

Environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI. They provide information about what others are doing, e.g. reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins. (‘bin it - others do’)

Answer 90

What are two lessons from obedience research? - Disobedient models make change more likely - Gradual commitment leads to ‘drift’

Answer 91

Milgram's research: disobedient models in the variation where a confederate refused to give shocks. The rates of obedience in genuine participants plummeted

Answer 92

Zimbardo (2007) - once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one. People ‘drift’ into a new kind of behaviour

Answer 93

One strength is support from normative influence in social change. - Nolan et al., 2008 hung messages on front doors of houses. The key message was Most residents are trying to reduce energy usage. - Significant decreases in energy use compared to control group who saw messages to save energy, with no reference to other people's behaviour. - This shows that conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI

Answer 94

- Exposing people to social norms does not always change their behaviour. Foxcroft et al. 2015 reviewed 70 studies of the programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake. There was only a small effect on drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency - This shows that NSI does not always produce long term social change

Answer 95

Another strength is that new minority influence explains social change. - Nemeth 2009 says that minority arguments 'cause people to engage in divergent thinking - This thinking leads to better decisions on creative solutions to social problems - Minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people's minds

Answer 96

One limitation is deeper processing may apply to majority influence. - Mackie 1987 disagrees with the view that minority influence causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue. - Majority influence creates deeper processing because we believe others think as we do. When a majority thinks differently, this creates pressure to think about their views - Therefore, a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubts on its validity as an explanation of social change.