Social Influence - section A Flashcards
1
Q
Definition of conformity
A
A change in a persons behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
2
Q
What was the aim of Aschs baseline study?
A
Devised a procedure to measure the extent that people conformed to opinion of others, even in situation when the others answers were clearly wrong.
3
Q
What was the procedure of Aschs baseline study:
A
- 123 American male participants tested individually sitting last or next to last in group of 6 to 8 confederates (actors)
- They were shown 2 large cards. On one was a standard line. On the other was 3 comparison lines - one which was obviously same as standard.
Each group stated which 3 lines matched standard.
4
Q
What were the findings to Asches baseline study?
A
- The Naive participants conformed 33% of the time - shows high level of conformity when situation is unambiguous.
- There were individual differences, 25% of participants never gave a wrong answer (never conformed) - 75% conformed at least once.
5
Q
What are the 3 variables affecting conformity?
A
- Group size - varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 (total group size between 2 and 16). When there are less people conformity rates = low. When there was 3 or more participants conformity rose until 33% and then it stayed level.
- Unanimity - Asch introduced dissenting confedirate- sometimes gave the correct/wrong but always disagreed with majority. Found with presence of dissenter - conformity reduced on average to less then 1/4 of the level it was when majority was unanimous. Conformity reduced if dissenter gave right/wrong answer.
- Task difficulty- Asch made line judging task harder by making stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length - difficult to see differences- conformity increased. - more likely to look to others for guidance.
6
Q
What are 2 limitations to Asch research?
A
- situation and task were artificial - participants knew they were in a study - lacks mundane realism. Findings - did not generalise to everyday life.
- Aschs findings have little application - only American men tested by Asch - women may have been more conformist. US= individualist culture.
7
Q
Whats one strength to Aschs research?
A
Evidence to support Aschs findings - Lucus et al. asked participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems. Participants were given answers falsely claimed to be from 3 other students - participants conformed more easily when questions were harder - show Asch= correct and task difficulty= variable affecting conformity.
8
Q
What are the 3 types of conformity?
A
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
9
Q
Definition of compliance:
A
Temporary agreement in public.
Going along with others publicly but not privately. Superficial change eg. Clapping along with audience not to stand out.
(low level of conformity)
10
Q
Definition of Identification:
A
We want to become part of the group - value the group.
We conform to fit in with the group eg. only being vegetarian around vegetarians but having some meat when not around them
(middle level of conformity)
11
Q
Definition of Internalisation:
A
Genuinely accept group norms - thinking the group is right.
Behaviour/opinion change publically and privetly eg. if an individual is influenced by a group of Buddhists and converts his faith.
(deepest level of conformity)
12
Q
What are the 2 explanations to conformity?
A
- Informational social influence (ISI)
- Normative social influence (NSI)
13
Q
What is the definition to ISI?
A
Conformity because we believe the majority are correct.
A desire to be correct - cognitive process - leads to internalisation. Happens in ambiguous situations - ‘i want to be correct’
14
Q
What is the definition to NSI?
A
Conformity to gain social approval and be liked.
emotional process - people prefer social approval rather than rejection - leads to compliance - ‘ i dont want to stand out/ look foolish’
15
Q
What are 3 strengths to types of explanations and conformity?
A
- Supporting evidence for NSI- Asch found many participants conformed rather than give correct answer - afraid of disapproval. Conformity rates in Aschs baseline study were 33% even though the task was ambiguous (obvious) - shows that some conformity = due to desire not to be rejected.
- Supporting evidence for ISI - Lucus et al found that participants conformed more in incorrect answers when maths problems were difficult. For hard problems situation = ambiguous - relied on answers given.
- real life application of NSI - Normative beliefs have an important role in shaping behaviours such as smoking. Linkenbach and Perkins found that adolescents exposed to the message that the majority of their peers did not smoke were less likely to take up smoking themselves. Supports the claim that people shape their behaviour out of a desire to fit in with their reference group.
16
Q
Definition of social roles:
A
The behaviours expected of an individual who occupies a given social position or status. Everyday examples include parent, child, student, passenger and so on.
17
Q
What is the procedure of Zimbardos (1973) experiment?
A
- Mock prison at stanford uni - done in basement.
- 24 American male student volunteers were involved in study
- selected by psychological testing that showed them to be ‘emotionally stable’
- Randomly allocated to be guard or prisoner
- 2 week experiment - $15 per day (only lasted 6 days)
18
Q
What were the findings from Zimbardos stanford prison experiment?
A
- Prisoners initially rebelled (day1-2)
- Guards woke prisoners up at night, performed body counts and made them clean the toilets
- Guards became abusive cruel and tyranical
- Prisoners became depressed, subdued and submissive
- Both guards and prisoners conformed to their social roles
- guards behaviour threatened the prisoners psychologically and physically eg. 3 participants were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance
19
Q
What two routes were the social rules encouraged by?
A
- Uniform- prisoners striped searched, given a uniform and number. Encouraged de-individualisation. Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs, and mirrored sungalsses.
- Instructions about behaviour - prisoners told they could not leave but would have to ask for parole. Guards told they have complete power over prisoner.
20
Q
What are 2 strengths to Zimbardos stanford prison experiment?
A
- Controlled - The participants were emotionally stable and selected randomly. Therefore behaviour = due to role and not personality. Control increased internal validity so have more confidence in drawing conclusions about effect of role on conformity.
- Real life application explaining the events at Abu Ghrabi prison- Zimbardo argues that conformity to social role effect can explain abuse of iraq prisoners
21
Q
What is one limitation of Zimbardos stanford prison experiment?
A
- Ethical issues - Protection from harm- prisoners treated very badly - a lot suffered bad psychological trauma - didnt have the right to withdraw. Zimbardo acknowledged that study should have been stopped earlier.
22
Q
Definition of obedience:
A
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.
23
Q
What was the procedure of Milgrams obedience study?
A
- At yale uni
- 40 American males (20-50 yrs)
- Participants assigned teacher (naive participant) or learner (confederate)
- volt generator - 15c-450v
- each participant supposedly for a memory study.
- 3 people - confederate (mr wallace) was always learner, truye participant = teacher - teacher could hear but not see learner.
- shocks were fake
- if teacher wished to stop experiment, the experimenter gave a sequence of 4 standardised verbal prods to continue
24
Q
What was the findings of Milgrams study?
A
- 100% of participants continued till 300 volts
- 65% of participants continued till 450 volts
- participants showed signs of extreme tension eg. sweating
25
what was the conclusion to Milgrams study?
- We obey authority even if that means our behaviour causes harm to someone else.
- Certain situational factors eg. proximity, location and uniform encourage obedience.
26
What 4 ethical issues arose in Milgrams study?
1. right to withdraw - participants had to overcome 4 prods before leaving
2. Informed consent - participants didnt know what procedure was truly about.
3. Use of deception - learner=confederate not participants , shock=fake
4. Protection from harm - most participants - experienced stress/anxiety- effects validity of experiment - participants believed = real
27
What are 2 limitations to milgrams study?
- lacks generalisability - only american men - doesnt represent whole population.
- ethical issues- participants deceived eg. Thought shocks were real. Baumrind (1964) felt this deception- serious consequences - damage reputations to psychology
28
What is a strength to Milgrams study?
- Replications have supported Milgrams findings- In french Tv game show, contestants give fake shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants - 80% gave maximum 460 volts -supports
29
30
Definition of Situational variables:
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour (eg proximity, location and uniform). The alternative is dispositional variables where behaviour is explained in terms of personality.
31
what are the 3 situational variables?
- proximity
-location
-uniform
32
How does proximity effect obedience?
In baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, teacher and learner were in the same room- the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%.
- In touch proximity - teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate - obedience rate - 30%
- in remote -instruction variation - experimenter left room and gave instructions by telephone - obedience rate - 20.5% - participants often pretended to give shock.
33
How did location effect obedience?
- study conducted in run-down building rather then yale uni - obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%
34
How did uniform effect obedience?
- Baseline study - grey lab coat. In one variation, he was called away by an inconvenient phone call at start of procedure - role taken over by 'ordinary member of public' in everyday clothes, obedience fell to 20%.
35
Whats one strength of Milgrams research into situational variables?
- Supporting evidence - Bickmans (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits + issued demands to people in streets of New York. People were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'jacket and tie' confederates - shows that situational variable eg. uniform has powerful effect on obedience.
36
What's two limitations to Milgrams research into situational variables?
-Low internal internal validity in study- Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations more likely to trigger suspicion because extra experimental suspicion. Some participants may have worked it out- unclear whether results were due to obedience or because participants saw deception and play-acted - influenced by demand characteristics.
- Danger of situational perspective - Milgrams conclusions suggest situational factors determine obedience. Mandel (1998) argues this offers an excuse for genocide. SItuational explanations hugely oversimplify the cause of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors - This permits others to excuse destructive behaviour ' I was just obeying orders'
37
Definition of the agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure eg. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciousness and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
38
What's the difference between an agentic state and a autonomous state?
Agentic state- act on behalf of another person (usually not authority figure) because they take no responsibility.
Autonomous state - opposite - not an agent - take responsibility for your actions.
39
Definition of legitimacy of authority
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 (legitimate) by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy.
40
Where and how do we learn to accept authority through childhood?
Parents, teachers ect.
41
What is the agentic shift?
From autonomous state to agentic state. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as authoritative figure - person has power because of their position in social heirarchy.
42
What's 2 strengths of Milgrams research into situational variables? (agentic state and legitimacy of authority)
- Support for agentic state- Most Milgrams participants asked the experimenter ' who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed?' When experimenter replied 'i am responsible' the participants went through procedure quickly without objectivity. Shows participants acted more easily as agent believed they were not responsible for their behaviour.
- Real world crime for obedience - research shows that some people disobey legitimate authority -eg. Rank and Jacobson - nurses disobeyed doctors even in authority. But soldiers at my Lai obeyed their commanding officer, maybe he had more power to punish than a doctor. Therefore some evidence in real-world situations that repeat for legitimate authority - can lead to destructive obedience.
43
What's one limitation of Milgrams research into situational variables? (agentic state and legitimacy of authority)
- conflicting evidence of agentic state- Rank and Jacobson (1977) found most nurses disobeyed a doctors order to give excessive drug dosd. Doctor was authority figure but nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into agentic state - shows agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations.
44
Authoritarian personality definition
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 those of a lower status.
45
Expectations of behaviour of someone who has a authoritarian personality:
- Exaggerated respect for authority
- Express contempt (hatred) for people of inferior social status
- AP forms through childhood through harsh parenting
- Also characterised by conditional love- parents love depends entirely on how their child behaves 'ill only love you if....'
46
What was Adorno et Al's (1950) research procedure?
- study investigated unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle-class white Americans.
- Used questionnaires including F-scale and conducted interviews to explore their childhood experiences and attitudes towards authority
- F-scale = potential for fascism scale - rated on scale 1 to 6 = agree strongly
- eg ' obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn'
47
What were the findings to Adorno et Al's research?
- Authoritarians (who scored high on the F-scale and other measures) identified with strong people and were contemptuous of (hated) the 'weak'.
- They were conscious of their own and others status, showing excessive respect and deference 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) about other groups.
- individuals with authoritarian personality are more likely to be obedient to authority.
48
What is one strength to the Authoritarian personality?
- Supporting evidence that authoritarians are obedient - Elm and Milgram (1966) interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgrams original obedient studies. They scored significantly higher on F-scale than comparison group of 20 disobedient participants. Suggested that obedient people may share many characteristics of people with authoritarian personality.
49
What are 2 limitations to the authoritarian personality?
- Authoritarianism can't explain a whole country's behaviour - Millions of people in Germany displayed obedient behaviour but can't all have the same personality. A likely explanation is that Germans identified with the Nazi state - unlikely the majority had an authoritarian personalty. Therefore, the authoritarian personality cannot explain the atrocities of WW2.
- Education affects obedience and authoritarianism - research suggests that education may determine both authoritarianism and obedience. Research( Middendorp and Meloen 1990) found that less-educated people are consistently more authoritarian then well educated. SUggests that instead of Authoritarianism causing obedience lack of education could be responsible for both authoritarianism and obedience.
50
Definition to social support:
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.
51
What are the two types of social support and explain.
- Resisting conformity : resisting peer - youre more likely to resist conformity with social support. Dissenting confederate acts as an ally - backing up.
- Resisting obedience to authority. Its easier to disobey an authority figure when you have social support backing you up.
52
Definition of locus of control:
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).
53
Explain LOC - internal and external
Rotter (1966) described internal/external LOC:
- internals - believe things happen to them - largely controlled by themselves - taking responsibility.
- externals - believe things happen outside their control - eg failed an exam because they had a bad teacher.
54
What is the spectrum of LOC?
high internal - low internal - low external - high external
55
what would the person display if they had low internal LOC and high internal LOC?
- low- more likely to resist pressure to conform/obey
- high - more confident- traits lead to greater resistance
?? check slides
56
What are 3 strengths to resistance to social influence?
- Evidence for social 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 less likely to smoke at end of the programme than control group who did not have a buddy. Shows social support can help keep young people resist social influence.
- Social support in real life - The Rosenstrasse protest in Nazi - controlled Berlin in 1943 was a stark illistration of Milgrams research in real life. German women protested against the arrest of their Jewish husbands. Despite threats that they would be fired upon, the women collectively refused order to disperse and their husbands were eventually set free. The Rosenstarsse protest mirrors Milgrams findings that the presence of disobedient peers gives an individual the courage to resist the authority's order.
- Evidence for support of LOC in resisting obedience- Holland (1967) repeated the Milgram study and measured whether the participants were internals or externals . 37% of internals did not continue to highest level (showed greater resistance) - only 23% did not continue. Therefore resistance partly related to LOC, improving validity of experiment to test obedience.
57
Minority influence definition:
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 as well as public behaviours.
58
Is minority influence the same as conformity?
No, minority influence is when one person or a small group influence the majority - different from conformity where majority does influencing.
59
What are the 3 processes to minority influence?
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
60
What does minority influence lead to?
internalisation - both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed.
61
What is consistency?
- Always doing the same thing.
- means minoritys view gains more interest - makes others rethink their own views.
62
What are the two different types of consistency and explain:
- synchronic - people in the minority are all saying the same thing.
- Diachronic - they've been saying same thing for some time.
63
Explain commitment and the argumentation principle:
- Showing deep involvement
- helps gain attention eg. through extreme activities
- activities must create same risk to minority to demonstrate commitment to cause.
- argumentation principle: when the majority pay even more attention because of the risk the minority is willing to take.
64
What is flexibility?
showing willingness to listen to listen to others.
- minority should balance consistency and flexibility so they don't appear rigid.
- Nemeth (1986) argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to majority.
- instead, the minority should adapt their point of view and accept reasonable counter arguments.
65
What is the process of minority influence?
- The snowball effect - over time people become 'converted' - NOT conformed
- switch from minority to majority
- the more it happens, faster rate of conversation
- gradually minority view becomes the majority and social change has occurred.
66
Explain Moscovici et als research (1969)
- Demonstrated minority influence in a study where a group of 6 people was asked to view a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether slides were blue or green.
- in each group 2 confederates said slides were green. True participants gave the same wrong answer (green) on 8.42% of trials - agreed with confederates.
- Second group of participants was exposed to an inconsistent minority (confederates said 'green' 24 times and 'blue' 12 times) In this case agreement to the answer 'green' fell to 1.25%.
- For a third control group there were no confederates and all participants had to do was identify the colour of each slide. They got this wrong on 0.25% of the trials.
67
What are 2 strengths to minority influence?
- 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 and found that minorities seen as being consistent were most influential. This confirms that consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
- Research support for flexibility- Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) provided support for the role of flexibility in a simulated jury situation. A group discussed compensation to be paid to someone involved in an accident. A confederate who adopted an inflexible position had no effect on other group members. A confederate who compromised late in negotiations (showing flexibility) did exert an influence, but one who compromised earlier did not (perceived as having caved in). This suggests that flexibility is effective at changing majority
opinion, but only in certain circumstances.
68
What is a limitation to minority influence?
- Moscovicis study lacked mundane realism - 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 and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-world situations.
69
Social change definition:
Social change occurs when a society or section of society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm.
70
What are the 5 stages of the conversion of social change through minority influence?
1. Drawing attention to an issue- minority can bring about a social change by drawing attention to an issue - eg. suffragettes and lack of votes for women.
2. Cognitive conflict - Minority creates conflict in minds of majority between what is currently believed and what minority believes . eg. only men being allowed to vote.
3. Consistency - social change - more likely when minority in consistent in its position. eg. suffragettes were consistent in their views regardless of other peoples attitudes.
4. Argumentative principle (commitment) - if a minority suffers for its views it is taken more seriously . eg. suffragettes risked imprisonment, force feeding or even death.
5. Snowball effect -minority influence initially has a small effect, but it spreads more widely until it eventually leads to large scale social change. eg. after the suffragettes actions, the idea finally spread to majority.
71
Explain social change through majority influence (conformity)
Changing people through what the majority is doing - NSI
eg. Parents telling their children that most people aren't binge drinking
72
What are 2 strengths to social influence and social chnage?
- Minority influence explains social change - Nemeth (2009) says minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking. This thinking leads to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems. Shows minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people's minds.
- Supporting evidence for NSI in social change - Nolan et Al(2008) hung messages on front doors of houses. 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 peoples behaviour. This shows conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI.
73
What is one limitation to social influence and social change?
- Social change only happens gradually - the role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities rarely bring about social change quickly. Because there is a tendency for human beings to conform to the majority position, people are more likely to maintain that status quo rather than engage in social change. This suggests that the influence of a minority creates the potential for change rather than bringing about actual social change .
