Social influence (Paper 1) Flashcards
Learning this entire psychology book does not guarantee an A+ (must on top of this do a bunch of independent research)
conformity definition
p. 16
A change in a persons behaviour or opinion as a result of real or imaginary pressure from a person/group of people.
(A01)
Internalisation definition
p. 16
We take on the majority view because we deem it as correct, permanent change in behaviour even when the group isn’t present.
(A01)
Identification definition
p. 16
Act the same as the group because we value it and want to be a part of it but we don’t always agree with what the majority believes.
(A01)
Compliance definition
p. 16
Go along outwardly with what the majority believes but privately disagrees with it. This behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring you.
(A01)
Informational social influence (ISI) definition
p. 16
Accept something the majority believes in because we believe it is correct and we want to be correct as well
(A01)
Normative Social Influence (NSI) definition
p. 16
Agree with the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked (this may lead to compliance)
(A01)
normative social influence- Evaluation
What people are likey to have a low NSI
p. 17
People concerned less about being liked
A03
normative social influence
Evaluation research support for NSI
p. 17
In Arch’s study? Some felt uncomfortable giving the right answer because they were afraid of dissapproval- conformity fell 12.5% when they had to write down their answers rather then say it outloud.
A03 (edit)
talk about Perrin and Spenser (1980)
Evaluation individual differences in ISI
p. 17
informational social influence
Arch in 1955 found out that students were 28% less conformist then the other participants who were 37% likey to conform.
Perrin and Spenser did a similar study but with engineers and found little conformity
A03
Evaluation, (talk about lucas et al (2006))
research support for ISI
p. 17
(informational social influence)
He gave mathematical problems some easy some hard, conformity was greater on the harder questions- even truer for students who rated their mathematical ability poor
- Shows people conform when they do not know the answer ( we look to other people and assume they must be right)
A03
Just name the type of research, not the procedure or conclusions
What did Arch research in 1951?
p.18
conformity
A01
Arch’s procedure
p.18
- A card had a line, another card had 3 lines- one which matched the same length as the first card- Pps were asked which line matched the standered line.
- Pps: 123 american male undergraduates. Each tested individually with 6-8 confederates (unaware of these confederates)
- confederates at first said right answers but later all said the same wrong answers. Each took part in 18 trials.
A01
Arch’s findings
p.18
25% overall did not conform
75% conformed at least once
(when interviewed afterwards most said they conformed to avoid rejection; normative social influence)
A01
3 variations
Arch’s variations
p. 18
He was interested in the conditions that might lead to an increase or a decrease in conformity so carried out some variations of his original procedure:
1) group size
2) Unanimity
3) Task difficulty
A01
talk about all 3
What were the findings from Arch’s variations of Group size, Unanimity and Task difficulty
p. 18
1) Group size: after 3 confederates conforming to the wrong answer, conformity rose to 31.8% - more then that did little to raise conformity.
2) Unanimity: Having a confederate who does not conform wrong or right answer, conformity reduced by a quarter (1/4) when this happened- The Pp’s had more independance when this happened
3) Task difficulty: He found that conformity increased when he made the task harder (made the lines more similar in length) - this suggests that informational social influence plays a great role when tasks become harder
A01
talk about the engineering students
Arch’s evaluation ‘a child of its time’
p. 19
He repeated the study but with engineering students- who felt more confident about measuring lines. only 1 out of 396 conformed.
1950’s was also an especially conformist time in America- this is a limitation because it may not be consistant against situation or time; as people have changed since then and many may conform less today
(engineers maybe felt more confident and thefore conformed less)
A03
declare 3 reasons
Why was Arch’s research task and situation seen as artificial?
p. 19
1)Pps knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with the demand of the situation (demand characteristics). 2) It wasn’t a trivial task and therefore little reason not to conform.
3) The group was not of people in everyday life e.g only male students
A03
Why was Arch’s findings seen a non appliable for the real world?
p. 19
1) Only men- women seen as more conformist because they care more about social relationships/ fitting in
2) US is a individualistic culture- collectivist cultures e.g China have a higher conformity rate
A03
He didn’t take gender or cuture into consideration therefore only applicable to American men.
Are you more likey to conform more around strangers or friends?
Arch- extra evaluation:
p. 19
William and Sogon in 1984 found that conformity was higher when with friends rather then strangers.
A03
What were some ethical issues with Arch’s study of conformity?
p. 19
the Pps were decieved because they thought they were with only other Pps (not told about the confederates)
Its importanant to weight this ethical issue against the benefits gained
A03
What did Zimbardo research?
p. 20
Conformity to Social Roles
A01
What experiment did Zimbardo do to test conformity to social Roles?
p. 20
SPE ( The Standford prison experiment)
A01
Social Roles definition
p. 20
The ‘part’ we play in various social groups e.g parent, teacher, student.
accompained by expectations on what is deemed appropiate in each role e.g caring, strict, obedient.
A01
(The standford prison experiment)
What was Zimbardo’s Procedure for SPE
p. 20
during late 1960’s
- Set up a mock prison, selected student volunteers who were deemed “emotionally stable” after extensive psychological testing.
- randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard
for reaslism, handcufted at their homes by local police and delievered to the ‘prison’.
blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued uniform and number- prisoners names never used. - Guards had wooden clubs, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. Told they had complete control over the prisoners. e.g when they could use the bathroom.
total Pp’s: 24 male students
A01
name 2 aims
What were Zimbardo’s Aims from SPE?
p. 20
1) To show how the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to those roles
2) To test the dispositional hypothesis (that it is the situation that makes people act the way they do rather than their disposition)
Disposition = ‘A person’s inherent qualities of mind and character’
A01
Around conformity to social Roles
What were Zimbardo’s findings from SPE
p. 20
(there is alottt to say for this one)
The guards behaviour became a threat to the prisoners’ psychological and physical health.
* study was stopped after 6 days instead if the intended 14.
Within 2 days, the prisoners rebelled against their harsh treatment by the guards. (e.g ripped their uniforms, shouted + swore at the guards and retaliated with fire extinguishers.) After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became depressed or anxious
The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by enforcing the rules and punished even the smallest misdemeanour. (e.g to prove they were always watching them would do head counts even at night.)
- One prisoner was released on the first day because he showed symptoms of psychological disturbance.
- Two more were released on the fourth day.
- One prisoner went on a hunger strike.
The guards attempted to force feed him and then punished him by putting him in ‘the hole’ a tiny dark closet. Instead of being considered a hero he was shunned by the other prisoners.
The guards identified increasingly more closely with their role. Their behaviour became brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners.
A01
What is DV?
(not in the book)
delete from here- supossed to be in ‘research methods’ i think
Dependant variable
- It’s the outcome you’re interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable.
A01
Conclusions from SPE
p. 20
People conformed very quickly to their roles, even volenteers who came as e.g a prison champlain found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather then a psychological lab
A01
What is IV?
(not in the book)
Independant variable
- stands alone and isint changed by the other variables you are trying to measure
A01
Zimbardo’s Standford prison experiment
What was the IV and DV from SPE
(not in the book)
IV: The conditions the participants were randomly assigned: prisoner or guard
DV: The resulting behaviour
A01
Zimbardo’s Standford prison experiment
SPE Evaluation
p.21
Name 4 Evaluation points (and go into depth)
control (positive)- because they only selected emotionally stable personalities it can be drawn that it was the situation that drew this behaviour.
lack of realism- negative
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the Pps were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are ‘supposed’ to behave. e.g, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’.
positive- High degree of internal validity.
Zimbardo gathered Quantative data showing that many Pps thought of it as a real Prison
Role of dispositional influence- (negative)
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation, to influence behaviour. Minimising the role of personality factors. (dispositional influences).
e.g
* only around 1/3 behaved in a brutal manner.
* Another 1/3 were keen on applying the rules fairly.
* The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges.
Suggests Zimbardo’s conclusion- that participants were conforming to social rules- may be over stated.
The differences in the guards’ fair/kind behaviours indicate that they were able to excercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role.
A03
Standford Prison experiment
What were some ethical issues with Zimbardo’s SPE?
p. 21
A major ethical issue was Zimbardo’s dual roles in the study.
e.g,
* On one occasion a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as a superintendent. Conversation conducted as if he was a prisoner (not student) in a ‘prison’ asking to be ‘released’.
Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.
A03
Why was there a lack of research support in Zimbardo’s SPE?
p. 21
- Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam’s (2006) made a partial replication of the Stanford prison experiments ‘bcc prison study’.
Their findings were very different to Zimbardo’s. It was the prisoners who took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience.
Researchers used ‘social identity theory’ to explain this outcome. They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did; identifiying themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned role as prisoners.
EDIT
A03
what did Milgram study in 1963?
p. 22
Obedience
A01
Milgram studied this
Obedience definition
p. 22
A form of social influence where 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 met
A01
Why did Milgram create this Original obedience study?
p. 22
He wanted an answer to the question of why such a high proportion of the German people supported Hitler’s plan to slaughter over 6 million jews in the Holocaust as well as 5 million Romani, homosexual, polled and members of other social groups during the Second World War. He wanted to know if Germans were different- were they more obedient?
A01
What was Milgrams procedure towards his obedience study before starting?
p. 22
He recruited 40 male Pps through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post. The ad said he was looking for participants for a study about memory.
Pp’s recruited were aged 20 - 50. Their jobs ranged from unskilled to professional.
Offered $4.50 to take part (during early 1960’s- around $85 now). They were paid the money at arrival and there was a rigged draw for their role.
A confederate ‘Mr Wallace’ always ended up as their learner while the true participant was the ‘teacher’, also an experimenter (another confederate) dressed in a lab coat, played by an actor.
Participants were told they could leave the study at any time.
A01
alott to read here watch out
What was Milgrams procedure towards obedience once it started?
p. 22
The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes while the teacher watched. The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task (the tasks involved learning word pairs). The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher with 45 volts. Thereafter the shocks were not real. The shock level started at 15 (labelled ‘slight shock’ on the shock machine) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled ‘danger- severe shock’).
When the teacher got to 300 volts (‘intense shock’) the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. After the 315 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner.
When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a standard instruction: ‘An absence of response should be a wrong answer’. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter gave a sequence of four standard ‘prods’, which were repeated if necessary.
Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’
Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you go on’
Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’
Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice you must go on’
the experiment continued either until the subject refused to continue or until 450 volts were reached and given four times.
The participants were then debriefed and met with the confederate.
edit this
A01
e.g The Quantative data found
What was Milgrams findings from his obedience study?
No participants stopped below 300 volts.
12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts (‘intense shock’),
13.65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts.
Qualitative data collected, showed many Pp’s had signs of extreme tension, sweating, tremble, stutter, bit their lips, groaning and dig their fingernails into their hands’.
3 even had full blown uncontrollable seizures’.
Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’ behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were not expected.
All participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire; 84% reported that they had felt glad to have participated.
A01
name 2 positives and 2 negatives
What was the evaluation from Milgrams study of obedience?
Good external validity- positive. Milgram’s study may at first glance appear to lack external validity because it was conducted in a lab. However, the central feature of this situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lap environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. other research supports this argument. For example, Howling (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying). This suggest that the process of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgrams lab study can be generalised to other situations. So his findings do have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
Supporting replication- positive. The Game of Death is a documentary about reality tv, presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram’s study. The participants belied they were contestants in a pilot episode of a new game show called ‘La Zone Xtrême’. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks- when ordered by the presenter- to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience. In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram’s results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants- nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety. This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority, and demonstrates that his findings to authority are not just a one-off chance occurrence.
Low internal validity- negative. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up- they guessed it was’t real electric shocks. in which case Milgram was not testing what he intended to test, i.e. the study lacked internal validity. Gina Perry’s (2013) research confirms this. She listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks. Milgram himself reported that 70% of his participants believed they were real meaning 30% did not believe the shocks were real. This shows us that it lacked internal validity.
Ethical issues -negative. Milgram led participants to believe that the allocation of roles as ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ was random, but in fact it was fixed. Perhaps the most significant deception involved the participants believing the electric shocks were real. The most significant consequence of deception is that participants do not have enough information to give their confirmed consent. Meaning they may be exposed to negative psychological consequences such as anxiety, humiliation, loss of dignity and self esteem if they are not aware of some of the aspects of the procedure when other people are.
EDIT THISSS OMLLLL
A03
milgram conclusion:
under certain circumstances most people will obey orders that go against their conscience.
when people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy, they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, compassion and morality, and are inclined towards blind obedience.
Atrocities (WWII) may be largely explained in terms of pressures to obey a powerful authority.
edit this
A01
What could be an alternative explination to Milgrams study of obedience
Social identity theory- meaning obedience lies in group identification, Pp’s may have gone along because they believed in the science of the reserach. And when obedience fell this was because they then identified more with the victim.
Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher in 2012 studied the Pps behaviour on how they reacted when the prods were used. Out of the 4 prods, only the last prod demanded obedience (the rest were a plea to help with the science of the study) - everytime the last prod was used the Pp quit (so did not obey).
A03
What were some ethical issues of Milgrams study?
.Lied about the allocated roles teacher vs learner being random- when it was fixed.
. Lied about the electric shocks being real - can be seen as a deception and betrayal of trust.
(Diana Baumrind who was very critical of milgrams experiment saw this as a damage to the reputation of psychologists and their reserach.
A03
relate it to milgram’s study
Situational variables definition
Page 24
name 3 examples of situational variables as well
Something happening due to the external circumstance rather then from the personalities of the people involved these do include things such as proximity, location and uniform.
In milgrams experiment he found serveral factors that he believed influenced Pps obedience levels. Such as the 3 named.
A01
relate it to milgram’s study
Proximity definition
Page 24
Physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to.
In Milgrams this would be the physical closeness of the teacher and victim/learner.
A01
A psychology definion pleaseee
Location definition
Page 24
The place where an order is issued- what influences obedience is the status/prestige associated with the place
A01
Uniform definition
Page 24
People in positions of authority usually have an outfit that represents this authority e.g police officers or judges
- this indicates to everyone who is entitled to expect our obedience.
A01
Tell me how Proximity played a part in obedience in Milgrams study
Page 24
from adjoining room to being in the same room (the teacher and learner) obedience dropped from 65% to 40%.
another version; the teacher has to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate if they refused to answer. Touch promimity condition dropped the obedience rate to a futher 30%
Another variation the instructions were given by telephone. This reduced the time pressure and obedience dropped down to 20.5%
(some also pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones then they were ordered)
A01
Tell me how Location played a part in obedience in Milgrams study
page 24
From the original 65% at the prestigous Yale university- doing so in a run down building droppped the obedience rate to 47.5%
A01
Tell me how Uniform played a part in obedience in Milgrams study
page 24
In the original baseline study the … wore a grey lab coat, in the other variation the experimenter inconviently had to make a call and was replaced by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (played by a confederate) - wore everyday clothes rather then a lab coat.
In this senario obedience dropped 20% (from the original 65%- so 45% obedience rate)
EDIT
A01
Evaluation- what research supports Milgrams variations?
Research support (positive) -
A field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits ; suit, milkman outfit, and security guard’s uniform. They would ask passbyers to complete a task e.g pick up litter or give the confederate a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likey to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard then the one in a suit.
This supports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factors likely to produce obedience.
A03
What is the lack of internal validity from Milgrams experiment?
Orne and Holland critisised Milgrams original study because many of the participants had worked out the experiment was fake, especially in his variation when the experimenter is swapped for ‘a member of the puplic’.
This is a limitation beacause we then don’t know if people acted accordingly due to knowing it was fake or due to obedience.
(But the stress many experienced may prove otherwise as milgram said)
A03
What was the cross-cultural replication of Milgrams study
His findings were replicated in other cultures which supports his study. Mirianda et al (1981) found obediebce rate over 90% for spanish students. This suggests milgrams conclusions on obedience is not limited to American males and can include other cultures as well as females. However Smith and Bond (1981) said these are western, developed countries and are not that culturally differernt from the USA. Therefore it in not applicable to say proximety, location and uniform apply to people everywhere.
A03
What was milgrams ‘Obedience Alibi’
Proximity, Location and Uniform are all factors that influence obedience, but David Mandel in 1998 critized this way of thinking, that those who did Evil behaviour could be justified as victims themselves. Saw it as offensive to people like survivours of the Holocaust.
A03
What was the ‘control variable’ in Milgrams variation
He systematically altered one variable at a time e.g proximety. All the other variables were kept the same and was replicated over and over again with more then 1000 Pps in total.
A03
Agentic state definition
page 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- since we do not get the blame/ can blame someone else.
A01
Definition for legitimacy of authority
page 26
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.
Most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly.
A01
Atonomous state definition
Page 26
- Opposite of agentic state.
- People in this state are free to behave according to their own principles/guidelines and so feel a sense of responsible towards their own actions.
atonomous means to be independant/free
A01
What is the shift from autonomy to agency called?
Agentic shift
A01
Agentic shift definition
Page 26
The agentic shift is smth Milgram (1974) suggested occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority.
This other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
Therefore people who stand below their power will switch from autonomy to agency.
A01
What were the Blinding Factors in Milgrams study
Milgram wanted to know why many Pp’s spoke as if they wanted to quit but didn’t and how they had stayed in this Agentic state. The answer is blinding factors:
Aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore/minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour, Reducing the ‘moral strain’ they are feeling.
e.g in Milgram’s experiment the individuals would state things such as ‘he was foolish to volunteer’ or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.
A01
what kind of people do we accept to have Ligitimacy of authority?
e.g Cops, teachers, Parents.
Becauase we accept that they have the power to punish wrongdoers.
A01
Relate back to Milgrams study on obedience
What is Destructive Authority?
Page 26
Problems arise when legitimate authority become destructivre.
History has often shown ppl use power for destructive purposes (such as Hitler or Stalin) ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
This was clearly shown through the prods used in Milgrams study, that ordered the Pp’s to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
A01
Evaluation- What research support is there for the explanation of obedience derived from social-psychological factors (the influence of other people e.g someone who has an Agentic sate or authoritarian state)
edit this
Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to people and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (the ‘experimenter’ was top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority) but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
In other words they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation.
A03
Why is the Agentic shift a limited explanation for why people are obedient?
Page 27
It does not explain why some Pp’s do NOT obey.
Also doesn’t explain the findings of Holfing et al’s study.
((Agentic shift would have predicted that the nurses would have shown levels of axienty similar to Milgrams Pp’s when doctors gave them unjustifiable demands but this was not the case. Instead they gave the responsibility over to the doctor as they understood their role in a destructive process (21 out of 22 obeyed) - meaning agentic shift can only account for some situations))
(Holfing et al’s study is on page 23)
A03
What is a strength for the ‘legitimacy of authority’ explanation
Its a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. For example in 1974 Kilham and Mann did an experiment in Australia and found only 16% of the Pp’s went to the top voltage, On the other hand, Mantell’s in 1971 found a different figure for germans- being 85%.
Findings from cross-culture research increases the valadidity of this explanation.
This can help explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes. e.g the US Army during the My Lai massacre.
A03
name the 2 positives and 1 negative Evaluation for Obedience in reference to Social-Psychological factors
Positive: cultural differences proven
Positive: (2001) Blass and Schmitt has research supporting it
Negative: agentic shift offers limited explanation to why some 人 don’t obey. + doesn’t explain then Holfing et al’s study.
2001 study- Students blamed experimenter in milgrams study
A03
What is one limitation of the agentic state explanation?
There is research evidence that shows the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift
Mandeel 1998 described an incident involving german reserve police batallion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in a small town in poland (but they were told they could be assigned other duties instead if they prefered) so they did not have direct orders to need to do so.
Therefore challenges the agentic state explanation. (since they were given a choice therefore acted autonomously/ In their own independancy)
A03
What is the ‘Dispositional explanation’?
Page 28
Behaviour that highlights an individuals personality (their disposition) often contrasted with situational explanation (External environment playing a role in determining something)
e.g Some of Milgram’s Pp’s disobeyed and some actively rebelled against the experiment, dispite all being sucummbed into the same situation and social pressure.
A01
What is an Authoritarian personality?
Adorno argues it is a type of personality which is more likey to be submissive to those with a higher status, and dismissive to those inferior to them.
A01
The 3 W’s ;3
Who created the F scale?
What is the F scale?
Why did he create it?
Page 28
1) Ardono et al
2) Fascism scale (used to measure authoritarian personalities)
3) Wanted to understand the anti semitism of the Halocaust
A)1
During 1950
What was Ardono’s procedure to investigating Authoritarian personalities?
page 28
investigated the cause of obediant personalities with 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconsious atttitudes towards other races. Developed several sacres including the F scale (fascism scale- used to measure authoritartian personalities)
A01
(made the F-scale)
What was Ardono’s findings from his study?
page 28
Those who scored highest on the F scale and other measures identified most with ‘strong people’ who looked down on the weak.
- conscious of their own and others status, showing excessive respect, difference and servility towards them.
-Also found that authoritarian people had a cognitive style- fixed and distinct sterotypes of other groups.
There was a positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
A01
What are some Authoritarian Characteristics?
-especially obediant to authority.
- extreme respect for authority and submissive to it
- Feel inferior sex, gender and races are worthless- need strong leaders.
- enforce traditional values
- inflexiable in their outlook
- uncomfortable with uncertainty (to them there are no grey areas- everything is either right or wrong)
A01
When does someone develop an authoritarian personality?
During Childhood- as a result of harsh parenting e.g stirct dicipline, impossibly high standards, critism of failings and expectation of absolute loyalty.
- Usually characterised on conditional love (affection for their child only depending on how he/she behaves)
A01
What is the process of scapegoating for children who develop authoritarian personalities?
Page 28
Ardono argues that harsh parenting can build up resentment and hostility in the child- put they can’t express this onto their parent in fear of relaliation. So they displace these onto people they feel are percieved weaker then them- this is the process of Scapegoating.
This explains the central trait of obedience to higher authority and the dislike for people considered socially inferior.
This is a psychodayamic explanation (The study of mental and emotional processes that influences behaviour)
A01
which is according to Adorno et al (et al means ‘and others’- latin)
(positive evaluation) What research supports obedience as dispositional
dispositional- being due to somones personality- usually contrasts with the setting. e.g confidant people not conforming.
1966- Milgram and Alan Elms (His asssistant) conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obediant Pp’s, Who had scored highly on the F scale.
they thought there might be a link between obedience and authoritarian personalities.
however it is simply a correlation and so not possible to draw any conclusions (There could be a third factor involved e.g lower education)
A03
Why is Obedience being seen as dispositional a limited explanation?
Doesn’t explain large scale obedience in a country. e.g pre-war germany had millions of germans who displayed obedience, racist and anti-semetic behaviour- despite the fact they must have had different personalities.
It is extremly unlikely that they all possesed authoritarian personalities. Therefore there must be a more realistic, alternative explanation.
(1996 Daniel Goldhagen argues that social indentity creates obedience)
A03
uh
(1996- what does Daniel Goldhagen argue causes obedience)
Social identity
A03
Why is there a political bias with Ardorno’s F-scale (which meaures Obedience)
Page 29
It measures an extreme form of right-winged ideologies.
Christie and Jahoda (1954) said this was a politically based interpretation of authoritarian personalities.
They argued that extremist left-wing people e.g Maoism also emphasies the important of complete obedience to legitimate political authority.
Therefore it was a limitation because it did not take into account the whole political spectrum.
A03
His study: dispositional explanation of obedience
What were Adorno’s methological problems?
(Name 2 and explain them)
Page 29
methological: The theory and strategy that researchers use to answer questions about behavior and mental processes
1) The F-scale was all worded in the same direction- meaning its possible to get a high score on authoritarianism just by ticking boxes down one side of the page.
Therefore some Pp’s may be ‘acquiescence’/ ‘yea-saying’ and the scale is just measuring the tendancy to agree to everything - acquiesence bias. (It is the tendancy to agree with items on a questionaire, regardlesss of its contents- this can be for a number of reasons including:
Personality: Some people are naturally more likely to agree with statements.
Perceptions: Respondents may think they know what the researcher wants to hear, or they may perceive the researcher as an expert.
Interviewer reactions: The way an interviewer reacts to a respondent’s answer can signal what the interviewer wants to hear.)
2) Another methological problem was that Adorno and his collegues interviewed Pp’s about there childhood experiences, but already knew their test scores- so knew which had authoritarian personalities. They also knew the hypothesis of the study ( This causes confirmation bias- The reserachers might have seen what they expected to see based on their hypothesis)
conclusion of these methological problems: Weakens the explanatory power (Ability of a theory to make scense of the evidence) Biases in both the measurment tool (F-Scale) and researchers expectations.
hypothesis: a testable statement that predicts the outcome of a study
A03
Adorno’s: correlation, not causation; for obedience being a dispositional explanation
Page 29
dispositional explanation: Behaviour that highlights the importance of someone’s personality (usually contasts with the situation e.g confidant people not conforming)
They studied many variables and found many strong correlations such as authoritarian personalities tend to be prejudice towards minority groups- however that does not mean one variable causes the other.
Therefore Adorno could not claim harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personalities.
A03
Positives and Negatives of Adorno’s dispositional explanation of obedience (A03 evaluations)
Page 29
Political bias (negative)
Methological problems (negative)
Research support by Milgram and his assistant Alan Elms (positive) - However it was only a correlation, not causation (Negative)
A03
Conformity definition
Page 30
Change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group of people
A01
Obedience definition
Page 30
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 fulfilled.
A01
Resistance to social influence definition
Page 30
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 situational and dispositional factors (Situational factors are those that are constantly changing within one’s life e.g environment, whereas dispositional factors are those that remain relatively stable over time. e.g personality)
A01
Social support definition
Page 30
The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do so too. These people act as models to show that resistance to social influence is possible
A01
Locus of control definition
Page 30
The sense we each have about what directs events in our lives:
Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them. e.g did bad on a test because they didn’t revise hard enough
Externals believe it is mainly a matter of external forces/ luck e.g you did bad on a test because the questions were hard or the textbook failed them.
A01
Name the key studies for resistance to social influence.
Asch study of conformity → used when looking at unanimity. His variation looking at the role of an added ‘non conforming’ confederate explains the role of social support
Milgram study of obedience → variation when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate (obedience dropped from 65-10%) explains the effect of a disobedient ‘model’
Allen and Levine → role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity especially in Asch type studies even when the dissenter would not be in position to provide the correct response
Gamson → the value of participants being in groups (dissenting peers again) as a factor increasing resistance to obedience
Holland → the role of LOC in obedience based on Milgram’s obedience testing
Twenge et al → analytical data study of LOC found contradicting information to study above. Found no correlation between increased internal LOC amd resistance to obedience
explain how it works - relate to Arch’s study on conformity.
Social support- conformity
page 30
Resisting conformity:
Conformity drops when other people present do not conform.
Seen in Arch’s research, the confederates who stirred away from the groups answer, whether they were right or wrong, gave participants freedom to follow their own conscience.
(however Arch found that if these non-conforming Pp’s start conforming again so does the naive Pp’s so it is not a long lasting effect)
A01
explain how it works- relate to milgrams study on obedience.
Social support- obedience
page 30
social support helps ppl resist obedience. In one of milgrams variation
If another person disobeys the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% (found in one of Milgrams obedience variations)
This challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
Pp’s may not follow this behaviour, but it acts as a ‘model’ for the Pp’s to copy.
It frees them to act from their own counsciousness.
A01
Locus of control- continuum
Page 30
The LOC continuum is a scale and individuals vary in their positions on it. With high internal LOC on one end and high External LOC on the other end. (with low external and low internal lying in between)
A01
Just talk about internals (externals will be its opposite so no point)
how does people’s LOC help determine their resistance to social influence
Page 30
Internals are more likely to be able to resist pressure to conform or obey ( This makes sense as someone who blames themselves for their actions, good or bad, are more likey to base their decisions from their own believes, thus resisting social pressure)
There are also more likey to be confidant, achieved orientated and have higher intelligence and less need for social approval.
A01
What research supports Arch’s idea, that social support can help people to resist to conformity.
Page 31
social support: Others not conforming , therefore you have more free will to choose to conform or not.
Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter (disagreeing with or refusing to conform) In an Arch type study. Even when the dissenter (disagreeing with or refusing to conform) wore thick glasses and said he had vision difficulties (so in no position to judge the length of the lines)- conformity had decreased.
-This supports the view that resistance allows them to be free from social pressure, and has little regard to the person who first resisted.
A03
What research supports Milgram’s idea, that social support can help people to resist to obedience.
Page 31
It’s a study that supports the role of dissenting (disagreeing with or refusing to conform) peers aiding resistance to obedience.
Gamson et al (1982) study had Pp’s made to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign (higher levels of resistance then Milgrams study)
29/33 groups of Pp’s rebelled.
- this shows us that peer support is linked to greater resistance.
A03
Edit
A strength in research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.
Page 31
In 1967 Charles Holland replicated Milgram’s study of obedience to see whether participants were internal or externals.
Internals showed more resistance with 37% not continuing to the highest shock level.
However only 23% of externals did not continue. This demonstrates that externals are less resistant to authority in a study like Milgram’s.
- This study increases the validity of the LOC explanation (internals and externals and how they function in society) and our ability to explain resistence.
Edit
A weakness in the evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance.
Page 31
A contradictory research (a disapprovement) for ‘A strength in research evidence to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.’ (which was Charles Hollands 1967 replication of Milgrams study on obedience)
Jean Twenge et al study (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40-year period. (1960-2002)
The data showed that over time people have became more resistance to obedience yet also became more external.
(If resistance was linked to internal LOC - we would have expected people to become more internal)
This contradicts Holland’s experiment and now suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
A03
Why is the role of LOC limited; specifically its role in resisting social influence to be exagertated.
Page 31
Rooter (1982) Points our that LOC only comes into play in novel situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familliar situations, where our original experiences will always be more important.
- This point is often overlooked in disscusions of LOC and resistance.
- It means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific sitiations in the past are likey to do so again, even if they have high internal LOC.
A03
Minority influence definition
Page 32
When a small amount of people (sometimes even 1 person) pursuades other people to adopt their beliefs/attitudes/behaviour. This leads to internalisation or conversion, in which
Public behaviour and private attitudes are changed.
A01
for minority influence
consistency definition
Page 32
Minority influence is most effective if over time everyone in the minority keep to the same beliefs - its effective because it will draw attention to the minority view.
A01
for minority influence
commitment definition
Page 32
Minority influence is most powerful if people are dedicated to their positions e.g making personal sacrifises. - This is effective because it shows they are not acting out of self-interest.
A01
for minority influence
Flexibility definition
Page 32
Relentless consistency can be seen as unbending and unreasonable, therefore minority influence is most effective if they show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.
A01
Why is minority influence not caused by conformity?
Page 32
Conformity is from majority influences, and usually doesn’t lead to internalisation.
A01
What is synchronic consistency and diachronic consistency?
Page 32
Synchronic- everyone is saying the same thing (making the same point)
Diachronic- Everyone is saying the same thing for some time now (they keep making the same point)
(Their consistency makes you re-think your own views because if they keep making this point or re-saying this point maybe they are onto something)
A01
What is the Augmentation principle?
Page 32
When someone takes action despite obstacles, their beliefs are perceived as more valid.
(demonstartes commitement to the cause and therefore makes people believe that if they care so much about it, I ought to consider their view- majority group members start to pay more attention to this minority who take extreme action)
A01
What is the Snowball effect?
Page 32
When a minority influence has consistency, commitment, and flexability. Over time the majoirty will switch to the minority position. they have become ‘converted’. The more this happenes the faster the rate of converstion- which leads to the Snowball effect.
A01
Research support for consistency
Page 33
. Moscovici et al’s study showed consistency is more efficient for minority influence then non-consistency.
. Wood et al carried out a meta-analysis (around 100) and found that minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential.
A03 ( A meta-analysis is a statistical process that combines the results of multiple studies to draw conclusions and answer questions)
Research support for depth of thought
Page 33
. Martin et al measured Pps support to a particular message, Pps were grouped and heard their initial view agreed, one group from a minority and another from a majority. Finally exposed to a conflicting view.
They found that less people were willing to change their opinions if they had heard it from a minority group - therefore this proves the depth of this process of thought.
A03
Why is the studies in minority influence artificial?
Page 33
They lack external validity as in most cases the political campaigns and jury decisions can be a matter of life and death
Therefore studies like Arch’s line judgement task lacks external validity.
A03
Research support for Internalisation
Page 33
.Moscovici’s blue-green slide study. Pps were allowed to write answers down (So their responses were private rather then public)
In these circumstances minority positions were greater - But they were reluctant to admit association with the minority position in fear of being considered radical/ weird / awkward, ect.
A03
Social influence definition
Page 34
Individuals/groups who change eachothers attitudes/behaviours. (This includes conformity, obedience and minority influence)
A01
Social change definition
Page 34
When a whole society adopts new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.
A01
e.g accepting that the sun orbits the earth, womens suffrage, gay rights and environmtental issues.
What are some special roles in minority influence?
Page 34
1) drawing attention e.g civil Rights Movement
2) Consistency
3) deeper processing
4) Augmentation principle e.g freedom riders
5) Snowball effect
6) Social cryptomnesia - People know that change has occured but don’t remember the events of how it happened e.g south America changing during Civil Rights
A01
(Topic: social influence and social change)
Lesson from conformity research
Page 34
Many campaigns increasingly exploit conformity processes by appeling to Normative social influence by providing information about what other people are doing- e.g littering caimpaigns ‘Bin it - others do’.
In other words social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are doing.
A01
(Topic: social influence and social change)
Lessons from Obedience research
Page 34
Zimbardo’s 2007 study suggests Obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment.
(Once a small instruction is obeyed it’s much harder to resist a bigger one - people will drift into this new behaviour)
A01
Research support for Normative Influences
Page 35
. Nolan et al investigated if social influence processes led to reduction in energy consumption in a community. Every week for a month they hung messages on front doors on san diago houses.
Some messages asked them to save energy, and others included other peoples actions/ behaviours on saving energy.
.The messages that included other peoples actions/behaviour found a significant decrees in energy usage.
- This shows conformity can lead to Social change through the use of Normative Social influence.
A03
1968
What does Charlan Nemeth argue about minority influence?
Page 35
Their effects are usually delayed and indirect
(Delayed because it takes time for the effects to be seen.)
(Indirect because it doesn’t directly change peoples beliefs or core attitudes, but Instead influences people in a more round about way - often affecting related issues rather then the central issue itself e.g a minority advocating for an environmental cause - people may not immedalty adopt the same view but may make smaller changes like recycling more - this is indirect because it does not tackle the core belief but starts by impacting related behaviours)
A03
Why is Charlan Nemeths argument about minority influence can be seen as a limitation towards social change in society?
Page 35
(He said their effects are usually delayed and indirect)
It shows its effects are fragile and its role in Social influence is very limited.
A03
What was Moscovi’s conversion explanation on the ‘Role of deeper processing’ for Minority influence?
Page 35
He said that the minority and majority have 2 different cognitive processes
((Minority influence causes individuals to have to think more deeply about an issue than majority influences (Which would be conformity))
A03
M said that minority n majority have 2 different cognitive processes
Who casted doubt on Moscovici’s explanation on ‘The role of deeper processing’ in Minority influence - and what did they explain?
Page 35
Diane Mackie (1987), presents evidence that it may be majority influence that creates deeper thinking if you do not share their views.
This is because we like to believe others share our views so when a majoirty does not we are forced to think long and hard about their reasonings.
- This casts doubt on the validity of Mosovici’s explanation.
A03
Barriers to social change
Page 35
Bashir et al found many resist to social change because they do not want to be grouped into the sterotypes and minorities - associating sterotypes like environmentalistis as ‘tree huggers’ and feminists as ‘man haters’.
The researchers tip to minortites wanting to create social change was to not act in their sterotypes because this will always be off putting to the majority.
A03
