Social influence (Paper 1) Flashcards
Authoritarian Personality Overview
- Formed from strict/authoritarian parenting, leads to resentment towards parents and due to inability to express this towards them, it’s directed to ‘lower’ or ‘non-conventional’ individuals.
- Generally a fan of the need for social hierarchies and social order and bery rigid in their views.
- Adorno suggested the AP was also linked to a high level of facism (one dictator with all the power) and often racism.
- Usually more obedient
Strength of Authoritarian Personality (Milgrim Shock)
Supporting evidence:
- Used f-scale on the obedient P’s (who went 450v) and those who were disobedient (didn’t go to 450v).
- Found obedient P’s scored much higher on the f-scale than the disobedient P’s.
- Suggests some people will always be more obedient dispite situational factors, supporting the claims of the AP.
Limitation of the assessment of the Authoritarian Personality
Methodological issues with measuring traits
- Relies of self-report methods of assessment, such as the f-scale
- Open to social desirability or untruthfulness depending on what is socially accepted.
Weakness of the Authoritarian Personality
Overlooks environmental/situational factors.
- Focuses heavily on the role of the personality of the person being obedient and doesn’t consider other factors such as the proximity, location, appearance (uniform) of the authoritarian figure.
- Problem when we demonstrate the vast number of people who may demonstrate obedience, they can’t all have APs.
Asch (1951) Study Research into conformity
Aim: To measure whether Ps would conform to the majority and give an obviously wrong answer
Procedure:
- Given two cards, one with a single line and the other with 3 lines of different lengths.
- Ps were asked to match 1 of the 3 lines that was the same length as the singular line. The answer was always obvious.
- One genuine P, 6 other confederates.
- 6 Confederates gave unanimous wrong answers on 12 of the 18 trials - these were called the critical trials
Findings:
- 75% on Ps confirmed on at least one critical trial
- Average conformity rate was 32%
- 25% never conformed
- 5% Conformed on all 12 trials
Group size affecting Conformity rates investigated by Asch
Replicated his study, but increased confederate group size.
Found at a certain point, further increases in size had no effect.
Found:
- 3% conformity with one confederate
- 12.8% with two confederates
- 32% with three confederates
Adding any more than this did not really affect rates of conformity.
Unanimity affecting Conformity Rates as investigated by Asch
Conformity rates were much higher when everyone in the group is unanimous.
Original conformity rate: 32%
If one other confederate answered the right answer on the line card; conformity drops to 5.5%
If one other confederate answered the wrong answer on the line card; conformity drops to 9%
Task Difficulty affecting Conformity Rates as investigated by Asch
Greater conformity rates are seen when task difficulty increases as the answer is less obvious.
He did this by making the lines more similar.
This is because the Ps look to others for guidance when they are unsure and don’t want to be seen as wrong.
Evaluation of Asch (1951) Study (Ethical + Methodological)
Ethical:
- Limitation: Criticised for deceiving Ps. They didn’t know other people were confederates or the aim of the study. Not given informed consent.
- Strength: Practical application - Can help policy makers influence the public behaviour (eg wear masks during covid)
Methodological:
- Strength: Ability for study to be replicated and manipulated, as Asch later did in his factors research
- Limitation: Low levels of ecological validity - not a realistic task when compared to teens smoking because other are etc.
- Limitation: Beta bias - only male Ps. Less generalisable. Also all Ps were American so potential culture bias
Zimbado Prison Study Overview
Aim: To observe how quickly people conformed to new roles.
Procedure: 24 males: 10 prisoners, 11 guards
- Prisoners: Were taken (‘arrested’) from their homes and strip searched and given a number to which they’d be referred to as.
- Guards: Wore a uniform, sunglasses (to prevent eye contact) and carried a wooden baton. Instructed to enforce prison rules.
Zimbardo took the role of superintendent. The study was planned to last 2 weeks.
Findings:
Prisoners: adopted/conformed to the role of Prisoner
- Initially rebelled against guards, became increasingly more submissive.
- Some experienced depression and anxiety - 6 released before day 6 due to extreme reaction
- Referred to eachother as their number (internalisation?)
Guards: adopted/conformed to the role of Guard
- Became increasingly cruel and aggressive
- Over the first few days, became increasingly abusive towards prisoners..
- Did things such as waking them up in the middle of the night to do repetitive tasks, such a clean toilets with bare hands.
Zimbardo: adopted the role of Superintendent
- Said he watched the Guards (psychologically) “brutalise” prisoners and didn’t stop it.
Study had to be discontinued after 6 days.
Conclusion:
- P’s conformity was due to situational factors.
- Conformity: Identification because of the P’s not showing these traits before or after study.
Evaluation of Zimbardo’s Prison Study (2 limitations + 1 Strength)
1. Limitation - Ethical Issues
- Ps not disclosed of all details of the study. e.g. being taken from homes, strip-searched
- This is Deception
2. Strength - Practical application
- Zimbardo’s research lead to the formation of companies to monitor that ethical guidelines are being followed in studies
3. Limitation - Methodology: Demand characteristics
- One P called John Wayne believed the study was about prison brutality so ‘acted’ brutally and that’s how he thought he was ‘supposed’ to act.
- Also all only white males, hard to generalise to all people
Resistance to Social influence: Social support def + S + L
def: Presence of at least one other ally who resists pressure to conform/obey can help others do the same.
This is because it reduces the power of the group pressure as the unanimity is broken.
S: Supporting Line Study of Asch
- In a variation one confederate went against the group and gave the correct answer, conformity (in the P) dropped to 5.5% and the same but the confederate gave the wrong answer, conformity dropped to 9%
- Shows how when the unanimity is broken, group pressure and conformity decreases
L: However, still a small amount that conform in this study
- Suggests there are some dispositions/personality traits that make them more likely to conform, such as traits linked to the Authoritarian Personality
- Shows the Social Support explanation cant provide a full account of why people resist social influence
Internal Vs External locus of control
Internal: Believe they have a significant influence on the event around them. Believe they’re in control of their life. More likely to resist social pressure
External: Believe outside factors influence the events that happen around them. Believes they don’t have much control of their life and things happen to them. Less likely to resist social pressure as they believe in ye out of their control
Evaluation of Locus of Control (2 S + 1 L)
S1: Supporting Evidence of Holland
- Repeated the Milgram Shock Study and tested Ps to whether they had a internal/external LoC
- Found 37% of P’s with Internal LoC didn’t go to 450v, but only 23% of P’s with an external LoC didn’t
- Provides validity of the claims of personality factors and LoC playing a role
S2: Further Supporting Evidence of Oliner
- Compared people who protected Jews during the holocaust to those who didn’t
- Found those who did protect them had a stronger internal LoC
L1: Subjectively Assessed Concept
- Based on a self-report method of assessment - a questionnaire.
- Subject to social desirability, making it hard to know whether having an external LoC makes people less resistant to social influence
Minority influence def (+ Consistency, Commitment, Flexibility)
Minority influence: Form of social influence where a minority of people persuade others to adopt and internalise their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours
Consistency: Minorities message must be consistent throughout time. Increased chances of people to pay attention to it if it’s a persistant message.
Commitment: Minorities must be seen as commuted to their cause and shown to sacrifice some factor of their life to show how important their message is. eg hunger protests
Flexibility: Group needs to be shown to be willing to compromise. If they are too rigid in their views, they may be dismissed by the majority. Need a balance of consistency and flexibility
