Social Psychology Flashcards
Informational Social Influence
Ppl conform to be right - unsure what to do so follow the group & conform - Sherif
E.g., fire at Woolworths 1979 10 died - waited to pay so couldn’t get out - no one wanted to break the schema
Normative Social Influence
Ppl conform to be liked & want to fit in & be socially accepted
E.g., when ppl smoke - Asch
Compliance
Change behaviour not mind - know = wrong
Asch
Internalisation
Change behaviour & mind - believe = right
Sherif
Identification
Change behaviour & mind for a time but can change back
Zimbardo
Asch
Aim: to investigate if ppl would conform even if knew answer = wrong
Sample: 7 male ptps - all but 1 = confederates
Looked at 2 cards showed 3 different length lines had to say which = same, all confeds said wrong answer 12/18 times
32% conformed in critical trial is, 74% conformed at least once, 26% never conformed
Said thought they were wrong
Asch Evaluation
All male students = limited sample = not gen
Time carried out may have affected - 1951 ppl tended to conform US = v conserv
Sherif (1935)
Auto kinetic effect = visual illusion
Aim: will ppl conform on ambiguous task
Asked how far a dot of light moved asked in group then alone v.v
If asked alone 1st would change answer to group when in group and if asked in group first would keep group answer when alone
Unsure so go with group
Sherif (1935) Evaluation
Low ecological validity - doesn’t reflect everyday life or normal behaviour
Unanimity
Original Asch study had unanimity all caonfeds gave wrong answer & 1/3 of ptps conformed decreased when not unanimous and further when = rebel social supported = 5.5%
Group Size
Research indicates as group size increases conformity increases to a point then no further
Asch (1956) 1 Ptp & 1 confed = low / none 1&2 = 13% 1&3 = 32% after 3 no affect
Task difficulty
= greater conformity as inc ppl look for guidance & leads to informational social influence
Zimbardo Description
Aim: investigate how readily ppl would conform to new roles by observing how quickly they conformed to prisoner / guard roles
Procedure: well adjusted male volunteers = payed $15 per day 2 week prison sim = randomly allocated to roles police “arrested” 9 prisoners taken to basement prison given clothes and number 3 guards on duty
Zimbardo Findings
Guards harassed & humiliated p’s conformed to roles & study = stopped after 6 days
P’s rebelled after 2 days - stopped w/ fire extinguishers
Some = depressed & anxious 1 had to leave after 1 day
Zimbardo Conclusion
Conformed behav = best explained by situational factors (NSI) rather than personality factors - situation of the prison environment = NB factor in creating guards brutal behav
Ppl will conform to social roles of they are highly stereotyped - shapes attitude & behav
Zimbardo Evaluation
Broke informed consent & deception - didn’t inform would be arrested / how bad would be - didn’t think of arrest until just b4 - gave inc eco val & didn’t know how bad would be
Broke right to withdraw - tole b4 & after but didn’t reinforce during pris asked to leave others mocked and decided to stay so assumed couldn’t leave
Protection from harm - physical = banned - not emotional = humiliated, made to do harsh exercise, broke sleep schedule
Didn’t know how bad would be, = fully debriefed & followed up for 1 yr - psycho sound
Legitimate Authority
The degree to which individuals are viewed as having justified power over others
Ppl are socialised to accept power & status of authority figures
E.g., army officers are seen as having legitimate authority to issue orders
Milgram (1963) noted that some ptps ignored the distress & focused on doing their duty
Agentic State
Individual obeys authority figure - seen as responsible for consequences = deindividuation & obey orders against their moral code - when asked who responsible in Milgram told = researcher - continued
Autonomous State - seen as personally responsible
Agency theory sees ppl as socialised to obey - keeps soc stable obedience occurs in hierarchical social systems - ppl = agents for authority figures
Authoritarian Personality
Per type chara by belief in absolute obedience, submis to authority & dom of minorities - certain personality types = assoc
Adorno (1950) held by highly obedient, insecure individuals - formed in childhood by strict parents - couldn’t show hostility to parents so show it to ppl who can’t harm them - doesn’t account for those w/o strict parents
Tend to follow orders w/o question & have rigid beliefs & are intolerant of change - concerned w/ status = conformist
Measured on F Scale - but can = easily manipulated - limits effectiveness of theory = high correlation between AP & anti-sem & ethnocentrism - well educated score higher
Proximity
Distance from consequences if = greater distance = less awareness of consequences = easier to obey
Milgram (obedience = 62.5% to 40% (same room) to 30% (hand on play))
Location
Can +/- from legitimacy of authority figure
Obedience inc in institutionalised settings e.g., army camp
Mil may have had inc obedience bc of Yale’s rep
Levels dropped to 47.5% when in run down office
Uniform
Impression of auth & legitimacy - obedience inc
Individuals = socialised to follow orders from those in uniform e.g., Police
Bickman (1974) 89% obeyed someone in uniform = 33% in casual clothes
Milgram Procedure
40 male voluns deceived thought = into punishment on learning & giving actual electric shocks
Genuine ptp = teacher & confed = learner - had to mem word pairs - answered using light system - shock if X
= 30 levers 15-450 Vs watched learner being strapped to chair - answered correctly at start then X is hesitate exp encour
Not actual shock contin until refusal / 450V given 4x then debriefed
Milgram Findings
All ptps went to 300 65% to 450 Vs most wanted to stop some showed extreme anxiety - dissented verbally obeyed
Under circumstances will obey against conscience - when ppl occupy subordinate positions in hierarchal society = liable to loose empathy
Milgram Variation Findings
When teacher & learner in same room = 40%
When force hand on plate = 30%
When experimenter left room = 20.5%
Run down office = 47.5%
Milgram Evaluation - Orne (1966)
Low eco val not fooled - DCs = stressed bc have to play along - why cheat when exp left room?
Milgram Evaluation - Validity
Low pop val only w/ men did later w/ women & found same - kilham & Mann only 16% of women obeyed men = 40% = freak finding found 65% many times
Low eco val = bizarre tasks & artificial situ - Hofling
Milgram Evaluation - Ethics
Broke informed consent - wouldn’t have worked if knew
Broke right to w/d - told to carry in implied had to finish -told b4 & after
Protection from Harm - exper high stress, trembled, shuddered & sweated - asked colleagues b4 said only 1% would 450
Didn’t break confidentiality & debrief - followed up 1 yr later fo ensure = psych sound
Holfling
Found nurses would obey an order to hurt a patient if told by someone they thought was a dr
Shows authority figures can make ppl do bad things
95% started to administer too high doses - can be used to defend Milgram - takes = bizarre- supports - nurses doing job
Bickman
Aimed to see is persons appearance affected obedience = field exper - independent groups 153 ptps NYC
Exper either dressed as guard, milkman, civilian - either asked to pick up litter / give someone a dime etc
Ppls = 3x m likely to obey guard - 89% guard, 57% milkman, 33% civilian
Bickman Evaluation
Lacked control of extraneous variables e.g., noise, wether, crowding
= opportunity sample - ppl could have been hurrying / depressed - not actual rep = unethical no consent - no debrief could have caused distress / embarrassment
All expers = male could have affected results
Only in 1 city in 1 country = culturally biased & lacks gen
Real Life Examples - Obedience
Massacre at My Lai 1968 - Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians killed by US soldiers + women = gang raped & ppl shot even when surrendering, buildings blow up, village = burned & animals killed
Only 1 soldier faced charges & found guilty said was following orders
Social Support / Dissenter
Perception of assistance & solidarity available from others
Dissenters go against majority provide social support & make it easier for others to resist social influence
Asch (1956) found a dissenter reduced conformity 32% to 5.5%
Reactance
Rebellious anger produced by attempts to restrict freedom of choice reduces conformity - Hamilton (2005)
Ironic Defiance
Belief other ppl’s behav occurs bc they have been told to do it lowers ISI (Conway & Shalter)
Status
Conformity is m likely to be resisted if polls view themselves as higher status (Richardson 2009)
Locus of Control
Sometimes individuals can resist pressures to conform / obey bc of personality - LofC = personal beliefs & expectations about what controls events
Internal Locus of Control
M likely to take responsibility & resist
External Locus of Control
Think luck & chance effect m likely to conform
Locus of Control A03
Holland repeated Milgram & measured LofC 37% of internals didn’t go to 450 only 23% of externals didn’t
Comes from research by Blass (1991) examined rela between LofC & variations
Oliner & Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups on non Jewish ppl who had lived through the Holocaust 406 protected Jews & 126 hadn’t if had = high internal if hadn’t = high external
Twenge analysed US data over 40 yr period found ppl in general = m resistant - lacks temp val - ppl = m able to resist now
Social Supporter
Shows disobedience = pos Milgram (1974) found only 10% obeyed when 2 confeds refused
Systematic Processing
If individuals have time to consid conseq = m likely to disobey than if X conseq (Martin et al)
Morality
Individuals who make decisions based on morality = m likely to disobey (Kohlberg 1988)
Personality
M empathetic = m likely to disobey if X conseq (O&O)
Moscovici (1969)
Aim: to see if consistent minority can influence a maj to give X answer in colour perception task
Lab exper 172 female ptps told = exper on colour perception
6 at a time asked to estimate colour out loud of 36 slides (all blue) 2/6 = confeds
2 conditions 2 confeds either called slides green consistently / said green 24x & 12x blue
Moscovici Findings
Ptps in consistent condition influ by maj called slides green in 8.4% of trials
Ptps in inconsistent condition called slides green in 1.3% of trials
Consistent maj have more power to influence than inconsistent
Moscovici Evaluation
Lacks pop val - used biased sample of 172 US females = ungen - don’t know how men would respond
Lacks eco val - lab exper v did situ to real life min influ = much m op - not gen
Broke informed consent - not told true aim - didn’t respect ptps may have felt foolish but = nec to test influ & inc val of results
Process of Social Change 1.
Minority influence
Incurs soc change overtime by altering attitudes & beh
Involves internalisation need to = flexible & consistent
Process of Social Change 2.
Zeitgeist
Means spirit of the times what is happening to make ppl change
Process of Social Change 3.
Snow ball effect
When min influ slowly spreads to greater number until tipping point = 10% then wide scale social change
Process of Social Change 4.
Social crypto amnesia
After a num of mems have shifted opinion to agree minority = Maj by time change occurs ppl have forgotten original source
Moscovici’s Factors for more effective minority
- Consistency - persuasive create doubt about stabilised ideas
- Commitment - consistency on the face of abuse helps motivate to consider
- Flexibility - minorities that compromise & = slightly inconsistent = m persuasive ?s consistency
