Social Influence (Paper 1)

Question 1

3 types of conformity

Answer 1

Compliance, identification and internalisation

Question 2

Compliance

Answer 2

The lowest level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour (the way they act) but not their private beliefs. This is usually a short-term change and often the result of normative social influence.

Question 3

Identification

Answer 3

The middle level of conformity. Here a person changes their public behaviour and their private beliefs, but only while they are in the presence of the group they are identifying with. This is usually a short-term change and is often the result of normative social influence

Question 4

Internalisation

Answer 4

The deepest level of conformity. Here a person changes both their public behaviour and private beliefs. This is usually a long term change and often the result of informational social influence

Question 5

Explanations for conformity

Answer 5

Informational and normative social influence

Question 6

Informational

Answer 6

When a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is right. For example, Jenness found that when after they had engaged in a group discussion, they were provided with another opportunity to change their answer on an estimate in amount of beans in a jar. Nearly all participants changed their original answer to conform.

Question 7

Normative

Answer 7

When a person conforms in order to be accepted and belong to a group. They do this because it is socially rewarding and to avoid social rejection. Asch found that participants in his experiment would conform to majority to avoid looking wrong and being embarrassed

Question 8

Asch (1951) experiment on conformity

Answer 8

Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority affects individual conformity

Method:

• Asch’s sample consisted of 123 male students from a college in USA, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. He used a line judgement task, with one participants and the rest of the group confederates
• In turn, each person had to say which line (A,B or C) was nearest the target line length. Each participant completed 18 trials and the confederates gave the same incorrect answer on 12 critical trials

Results: On average, the real participants conformed on 32% of the critical trials. 74% of the participants conformed at least once. 26% of the participants never conformed.

Conclusion: Most of the participants knew that their answers were incorrect, but they went along with the group in order to fit in (normative social influence)

Question 9

Evaluation of Asch’s experiment

Answer 9

+Reliable: Asch used a standardised procedure which means that the findings can be replicated , increasing reliability

+Answers were obvious , Asch’s study shows the impact of the majority

• External validity: The set up was artificial and the task an odd thing to be discussing around a table, thus it lacks mundane realism
• Ethics: The participants were deceived as they thought it was a visual perception task

Question 10

Variables affecting conformity

Answer 10

Group size: Asch found that as he increased the size of the majority conformity increased. With 2 confederates conformity occurred on 12.8% of trials, it rose to 32% for trials with 3 confederates

Unanimity: The extent that members of a majority agree with one another and was identified by Asch as a variable that affects conformity. He found that if one confederate dissented and gave the correct answer conformity levels dropped from 32% to 5%

Task difficulty: Asch found that when he made the line judgement task more difficulty, conformity levels increased as the participant was more likely to believe that the confederates were right.

Question 11

Zimbardo (1973) Stanford prison experiment

Answer 11

Aim: To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles of guard and prisoner in a role playing exercise that stimulated prison life

Method:

• 21 male university students volunteered for $15 a day. There were 2 social roles, prisoners or guards
• The guards were instructed to run Stanford Prison without using physical violence and the experiment was see to run for two weeks

Results:

• Prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles: within days the prisoners rebelled; the guards dehumanised the prisoners
• The experiment was terminated after 6 days due to the severe ethical issues

Conclusion: The guards and the prisoners conformed to their social roles. They were expected to play and therefore the experiment clearly supports the situational explanation of behaviour rather than the dispositional one.

Question 12

Evaluation of Zimbardos prison experiment

Answer 12

+Control- experiment was highly controlled as everything was filmed and recorded
+Consent- This was given but participants were not fully informed. Prisoners were not aware police would come and arrest them at their home
-Ecological validity- real prisons are worse and it was clearly artificial
-Ethics- severe reactions by the prisoners. Failed to protect prisoners
-Observer bias- Zimbardo has since admitted he lost his objectivity as the prison governor got too involved

Question 13

Milgrams study of obedience (1963)

Answer 13

Aim: To investigate to what extent an individual will obey, even when the orders go against their moral principles

Method:

• 40 male participants volunteered and the real participant was always assigned to the role of ‘teacher’
• The teacher had to give and ‘electric shock’ every time the learner made a mistake
• The experiment continued until the participant refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop, the experimenter would say: ‘The experiment requires you to continue’.

Results:

• All of the participants went to at least 300 volts
• 65% continued until the full 450 volts

Conclusion: The study shows that inhumane, immoral acts can be committed by ordinary people. Situational factors led people to lose their autonomy and become agents of an authority figure

Question 14

Milgrams study evaluation

Answer 14

+Internal validity: Milgram appeared to have created a situation which the participants believed to be true as evidenced by their strong reactions
+Ethics: His debrief was very thorough and 84% of participants said they were glad to take part
-Ethics- people thought they were actually killing someone at times which can have a emotional effect
-Informed consent: There was no informed consent, and there participants were very stressed and not protected, although they met the unharmed learner at the end

Question 15

Variations of Milgram

Answer 15

Proximity- In this experiment proximity worked of several level ps: how close to the teacher the learner was, how close teacher was to experimenter. With teacher and learner in same room the percentage of full shock went from 65% to 40%. When experimenter was out of room giving instructions on the phone obedience dropped to 20.5%

Location- When Milgram conducted a valuation in a run down office he found that % of people did the full 450 fell from 65% to 47.5%. Original experiment was at prestigious Yale University

Uniform: Authority figures often wear clothes that symbolise their position of authority. Obedience dropped when expermineteer wore general everyday clothes compared to a lab coat.
Research support:
Bickman. He got a man dressed as a milkman, security guard and normal clothes to ask public to pick up litter. Found that public obeyed security costume highest and normal clothes least. Shows impact of uniform

Question 16

Explanations for obedience

Answer 16

Agency theory and authoritarian personality

Question 17

Agency theory

Answer 17

Milgram believed we exist in two different states:
Autonomous state- we show free will and make our own choices and decisions
Agentic state- we follow instructions from someone we perceive has legitimate authority over us such as a teacher or police officer. We learn this through socialisation.

Question 18

Authoritarian personality- Elms and Milgram (1966)

Answer 18

Aim: To see if the obedient participants in Milgrams original research were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits in comparison with the disobedient participants

Method:

• 20 obedient and 20 disobedient participants from Milgram’s original experiment
• Completed Adornos F scale to measure their level of authoritarian personality and interviewed about their relationships with their parents and their thoughts about the experimenter in Milgram’s original experiment

Results:

• Obedient participants scored higher on the F scale
• Obedient participants were less close to their fathers
• Obedient participants admired the experimenter in Milgram’s experiment

Conclusion: There is a relationship between obedience and authoritarian traits

Question 19

Dispositional explanations of obedience

Answer 19

Adorno et al- He first came up with authoritarian persona,it’s which basically means that a person has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient towards them. Have not respect for those beneath them

F-Scale- A questionnaire that identifies whether someone has authoritarian personality. Those who scored high on F scale were seen as strong and showed disregard to the weak which outlines authoritarian personality.

Question 20

Resistance to social influence

Answer 20

Some people are more resistant than others: locus of control and social support

Question 21

Locus of control

Answer 21

Rotter (1966) can be used to explain resistant to social influence. It refers to how much people believe they are in control of their own lives. To measure locus of control you can complete questionnaires. Two types of locus of control…..

Question 22

Internal locus and obedience

Answer 22

• Believes they are always responsible for their own behaviour
• Likely to seek more information before following orders
• Believe they are in control of their life
• More likely to reject social influence

Question 23

External locus and obedience

Answer 23

• Sees their life as being controlled by luck, chance or by others
• More likely to obey authority figure
• Accept social influence

Question 24

Social support

Answer 24

One way people can resist pressure to conform or obey is if they have an ally as social support, someone supporting their point of view. Having an ally can build confidence and allow individuals to remain independent. In one variation, Asch found that the presence of an ally, who agreed with the real participant, lowered the latters rate of conformity from an average of 32% to just 5%.

Question 25

Minority influence

Answer 25

There are 3 key factors that can have an affect on minority influence:

Consistency: refers to the way in which minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority members share the same belief and retain it overtime. This then draws attention of the majority to the minority

Commitment: the way minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority shows dedication to their position. Commitment typically involves some form of personal sacrifice, which shows the majority that the minority is not just acting out of self interest

Flexibility: minorities who are consistent but not flexible are less persuasive. Rigidly sticking to the same arguments is unappealing, and a degree of flexibility is a more successful style.

Question 26

Moscovici et al (1969)

Answer 26

Aim: To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception task

Method:

• 172 female participants in groups of 6
• They were shown 36 slides, which were all different shades of blue
• In one condition (consistent) the 2 confederates said all 36 slides were green
• In the other (inconsistent) the confederates said that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue

Results:

• In the consistent condition, the real participants agreed on 8.2% of the trials
• In the inconsistent condition, the real participants only agreed on 1.25% of the trials

Conclusion: This shows that a consistent minority is 6.95% more effective than an inconsistent minority and that consistency is an important factor in minority influence

Question 27

Nemeth minority influence

Answer 27

Aim: To examine the idea of flexibility as a key characteristic of minority influence

Method:
-Participants, in groups of four (with one confederate), had to agree on the amount of compensation they would award the victim of a ski-lift accident.
-There were two conditions:
-1 The minority argued for a low rate and refused to change their position
(inflexible);
-2 The minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised,
offering a slightly higher rate (flexible).

Results: In the inflexible condition, the minority had little or no effect on the majority; however, in the flexible condition, the majority members were much more likely to compromise.

Conclusion: Nemeth’s research highlights the importance of flexibility and questions the idea
of consistency, suggesting that striking a balance between the two is the most
successful strategy for a minority to adopt.

Question 28

Social change

Answer 28

Social change refers to the ways in which society develops over time, replacing former beliefs, attitudes and behaviours with new norms and expectations. There are a number of processes that can be used to explain social change. Three of the main ones are consistency, deeper processing and drawing attention

Question 29

Deeper processing

Answer 29

The more people thing about the issue, rather than blindly accepting it, the more they will be able to challenge the existing social norms to bring about change

Question 30

Drawing attention

Answer 30

Highlighting concern

Question 31

Consistency of message

Answer 31

Repeating constant message to make others question their beliefs

Question 32

Augmentation principle

Answer 32

Minorities take risks to show commitment to their cause

Question 33

Snowball effect

Answer 33

Ppl gradually start to switch from majority position to minority one

Question 34

Dissenter

Answer 34

Someone whose willing to go against status quo and act as role model for others to break power of majority