topic 1: social influence Flashcards
describe and evaluate measures of central tendency
they are descriptive statistics that measure average and look at the middle of the data set
- mean
– an anomaly will interfere with the mean
+ it is representative as it makes use of all data values - median
– not representative of all data sets
+ not affected by anomalies - mode
– can have so many modes that it becomes pointless
+ useful if data is in categories
describe and evaluate measures of dispersion
range
– affected by extreme values
+ easy to calculate
standard deviation
tells us how much scores differ from the mean on average
used if the mean is used as the measure of central tendency and takes every value into account
a large standard deviation = scores are widely distributed, there are many scores occurring a long way from the mean and vice versa
it is used when your data has a standard bell value
+ not affected by extreme values
- can be hard to calculate
characteristics of bar charts
- used for non-continuous data, aka categorical/discrete
- bars can’t touch each other
characteristics of histograms
- show continuous data
- columns can touch each other
- all intervals are shown, even if there aren’t any scores within them
characteristics of scatter graphs
- used with data that shows a correlation
what is social influence
the process by which an individual’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviour are modified by the presence or action of others
what is conformity and why does it happen
it is majority influence; majority influences the minority, a person’s appearance, behaviour and values can be changed
may be because:
- they are insecure/unsure
- they want to be liked and fit in
- feel real/imagined pressure from a group that makes them do things that they wouldn’t do outside the group
compliance is when you publically agree but personally disagree, it’s artificial
outline the study done on conformity and majority influence and the findings
Asch; The Power of Majority Influence and Conformity 1951
method: lab experiment
sample - 123 American students
procedure: 7 participants but only 1 is innocent, other 6 are confederates; innocent sits penultimately to give them a chance to be influenced
there were 18 cards, 6 in each category; too long, too short, just right
Results (have to know these 4):
36.8% conformity rate
25% never conformed
75% conformed at least once
5% conformed at every trial
conclusions:
through interviews, Asch found that some p’s conformed because they though the group was right and reported truthfully to be right also (Information Social Influence)
most conformed to fit in and avoid disagreeing/causing issues, so they didn’t answer truthfully (Normative Social Influence)
what is informative social influence
usually occurs when an individual lacks knowledge and is unsure about a new situation and so looks to the group for support
can occur in a crisis situation where the decision has to be made quickly and we assume the group is correct
individual accepts/agrees so they can also be correct
what is normative social influence
occurs because the individual wants to fit in with the group and not be rejected
they may accept it even if they don’t believe it
evaluate Asch’s research on The Power of Majority Influence and Conformity
– lack of generalisability
the sample was 123 students; this doesn’t represent the population
older people have been found to be more secure in their opinion and they don’t care as much about fitting in
students are more likely to want to to make friends and fit in
+ lots of standardised procedures allows reliability to be tested
eg. 12 chances to conform, all sat one from the end
the research can be replicated with different samples in different countries to test reliability
– But, there has been contradictory evidence found
Perrin repeated with UK engineering students and only 1 conformed in almost 400 trials
may be bc they have to be accurate with these things and are therefore more confident
+ it has been supported by Lucas et al. they asked p’s to solve easy and hard maths problems , p’s were found to conform more if questions were hard, BUT also found that conformity is more complex than Asch and found that individual factors (eg. confidence) can in/decrease conformity
– low ecological validity
the tasks quite artificial as there are no real consequences to conforming or not; they just had to match Ines based on size and there were no real consequences
the answers were also unambiguous so they were more confidents unlike eg. in a jury
what are the factors affecting conformity + supporting studies
- group size
1 confederate 1 innocent - 3% conformity
3 confederates 1 innocent - 33% conformity - unanimity
the dissenter gives either the correct answer or a wrong answer that is different to the rest of the group
in both cases; conformity was decreased to 5.5%
due to: (a) increased participant confidence (b) broken united front - task difficulty
Asch made the lines more similar in height to make the task harder; this increased conformity because p’s doubted themselves more
this technique shows excellent science, each variable was altered to see what the impacts were
what are the types of conformity
compliance - false behaviour, short term, stops when there is no longer group pressure
identification - the behaviour is adopted temporarily, usually to conform to the expectation of a certain social role (eg. teacher, nurse)
internalisation - true behaviour, permanent, will continue with no group pressure
evaluate normative and informational social influence
+ evidence support for NSI
interviews from Asch’s first study; after everybody turned to look at another guy that went against the group the innocent p said “why should I make waves”, didn’t want o be different and they’d rather just agree to be accepted
+ evidence support for ISI
Asch’s task difficulty study, increasing difficulty sound increased conformity because individuals were more unsure of the answer, he found this out using interviews
– individual diferences
Perrin repeated asch’s study with uk engineering students and 1 in almost 400 conformed; may be due to engineering students working with accuracy etc. more and being more confident in their answers
– separating the 2 processes is over-simplistic
sometimes both are involves/ we can’t tell which one plays a bigger role
eg. when a dissenter was added in Asch’s study we don’t know if it influences NSI or ISI
describe the setup of the study carried out on conformity to social roles
Zimbardo
sample: 21 male students that were screened for psych problems, drug abuse and a crime history
they were randomly assigned to guard/prisoner (but the guards were Told that they were chosen)
was meant to be 2 weeks
outfits:
prisoner - loose smock, cap to cover hair, only identified by given number
cap: shaved head
guard - uniform, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades
mirror shades - makes eye contact with prisoners difficult
aim, of both is de-individuation; losing their individual identity increases the chance of them conforming to this percieved role
what were the results/findings of Zimbardo’s study
identification of both guards and prisoners occurred quickly
- some guards started harassing in a few hours
- in 2 days, prisoners started rebelling; ripped uniforms + shouted swearing at guards
- The guards used fire extinguishers to retaliate, using ‘divide-and-rule’ tactics, playing the prisoners off against each other and completing headcounts, sometimes at night
- prisoners soon adopted prisoner-like behaviour too e.g. they became subdued; they ‘snitched’ to the guards about other prisoners and discussed only prison life (suggesting they took it seriously and believed it); they took prison rules seriously; they increasingly became docile and obedient
- they each went further to each pole, suggesting increasing internalisation of the roles
the exp. ended in 6 days rather than 14
what were the conclusions of Zimbardo’s study
- Social roles appeared to have a strong influence on individuals’ behaviour in this study
- Power may corrupt those who wield it i.e. the guards over the prisoners
- Institutions may brutalise people and result in deindividuation (for both guards and prisoners)
- A prison exerts psychological damage upon those who work and are incarcerated there
evaluate Zimbardo’s study
– poor ethics
they experienced more stress than everyday life + deception, the lack of informed consent; we can see this bc 4 people left early due to mental breakdowns + they were actually arrested at their homes without warning
com: this would be stressful + humiliating and breaking ethical guidelines can make getting future p’s more difficult
– demand characteristics
most sadistic guard said he was playing a script based on a movie (Cool Hand Luke) because he thought the point was showing how vicious the prison system is
this reduces validity because we know that at least one guard didn’t actually act based on their given social role
However, some may have actually believed it bc they introduced them with their number to a priest
+ changed the american prison system
4 teens that were initially emotionally healthy had to leave bc of issues so young offenders are now separate from the older, more violent offenders
so there have been positive implications from the research
– low ecological validity
they were students that are getting paid for 2 weeks and they know this, so the results could be artificial as people may not fully fall into their given social roles
outline the behavioural study on obedience
milgram
aim - to investigate the level of obedience shown when participants were ordered to administer electric shocks to another person by an authority figure
participants; 40 males volunteered for a yale uni study in response to news ads from 20yrs to 50yrs, from connecticut with a variety of occupations.
wanted them all to be ‘normal people’ so the sample would be equivalent to the Nazi’s
deliberately ethnocentric to see if americans could follow like the Nazi’s did
method - controlled observation
the study was given a fake aim of research into memory and learning to prevent demand characteristics
the electric shock generator - it went from 15 to 450 volts, increasing by 15V and you have to increase each time, it won’t let you go lower/stay the same, each voltage had a descriptor (eg. slight shock/ danger-sever shock
- each volunteer was introduced to another participant (a confederate)
- They each drew lots to see who’d be the ‘Teacher’ (T) or ‘Learner’ (L). but the draw was fixed, so the genuine participant was always T and the confederate the L
- the shocks were falsely shown to be real
- An Experimenter was also involved, a confederate dressed in a grey lab coat
- learner was asked to learn a set of word pairs and the teacher would test his knowledge
- They were placed in adjacent rooms and T had an electric shock generator to administer shocks to L
- T was instructed to punish L with a shock after each incorrect answer he gave
- there were pre-recorded responses that the L played for each voltage (begging them to stop, screaming, silence for the last 3)
- When T displayed a reluctance to injure the L, they were given fixed prods (eg. the experiment requires you to continue, you have no choice but to continue)
describe the findings of Milgrams study
quantitative:
- no one left before reaching 300V
- if anyone reached 390V, they carried on until 450 (450 will only end after 450 is used thrice, its the only one that can be used repeatedly)
- 65% obedience
qualitative:
- p’s showed nervous behaviour; sweat, stutter, tremble, nervous laughter
- at least 1 had a seizure
- p’s that left early said ‘oh I can’t go on with this’, ‘this is crazy’
possible explanations for results:
- they felt the experiment was worthy bc Yale is seen as a prestigious uni
- they had been told beforehand that the shocks were not dangerous
- when the learner answers, it suggests that they are still playing the game and are okay with continuing
- they felt it was valid for the teacher to have the right of asking the teacher to do something
evaluate Milgram’s study on obedience
– p’s were potentially not protected from harm in the research
there was stuttering, trembling and at least 1 seizure from stress (bc they thought they killed him)
making someone think that is more stress than everyday life, thing like this give psych a bad rep and makes people less likely to be on future research
– p’s may have shown demand characteristics and administered high shock levels bc they know what he was testing
eg. thought this treatment was unbelievable from such a prestigious uni and why diff. rooms
means that the behaviours are artificial and they aren’t that obedient actually
However; you can’t fake seizure, trembling etc. so some did believe the situation
— culturally relativist
south african 87.5% obedience rate
+ standardised procedures that can easily be repeated are used
eg. set selection of prods, pre-recorded responses, shock generator set up
it can then be repeated with different populations to see if findings are consistent, making them reliable
what factors have been found to affect obedience
proximity
location
authority figure
outline the findings of Milgram’s proximity variations
teacher + learner were in the same room so that their reaction could be seen
- 40% obedience
may still be quite high because it is visible that they are okay
drops because its harder to look at them while struggling and still keep going
touch proximity condition:
teacher was told that if the learner refused to answer a question, they had to force their hand onto an electro-shock plate
- 30% obedience
drops because their is increased responsibility for what is happening
remote instructor condition:
the experimenter left the room to give the teacher instruction via telephone
- 20% obedience
p’s gave weaker shocks than they were told to/repeated shocks/pretended to give them
because the authority is not as intimidating when not present physically
what location variation of his study did Milgram carry out
rundown/maintenance needing building:
- approx 50% obedience
decreased because the building was unknown and didn’t have the prestige that Yale did, may have appeared less official/not worth their time
what research was carried out into authority figure as a factor affecting obedience
Bickman 1974
New York field experiment
had 3 confederates with 3 different fits; milkman/jacket and tie/security guard
the confederate stood in the street and ordered people to pick up litter and give him parking meter money
- people were 2x more likely to listen to the confederate dressed as a security guard than the other 2
evaluate research on factors affecting obedience
– low validity
they may not be measuring what they think, p’s could question why theyre left with v expensive equipment + why the researcher is not there for their on experiment
may have shown less obedience because they thought the experimenter wasn’t as responsible bc of less authority rather than proximity
– harm to participants
touch proximity variation asked teacher to force learners hand onto electro shock plate
knowing that you are capable of doing this could be mentally damaging
But, you could see Mr Wallace and knew he was alive and somewhat okay, so it could be argued that this is less harm than the og.
+ high control levels
Milgram was able to systematically change a variable at a time and keep all others the same
eg. proximity and setting
he was able because of clear standardised procedures, making it v scientific and clear as to what situational factors are influencing
– overestimates the power of environmental factors
some still obeyed, so the environment is not the only influential factor, there must also be some social influence
eg. locus of control / authoritarian personality
outline the Agency theory
Milgram
1. person is in an autonomous state (making their own decisions)
2. you get an Order from an authority figure
3. this causes an agent shift because the authority figure has greater power due to their social hierarchy position and you feel like you have to obey when you are ordered
– when someone tries to blame you for something when you’re in the agent state, you take no responsibility because you had no choice and were just following orders
what is legitimacy of authority
authority that has been agreed by society; society has agreed that power is carried in these positions and it is accepted by the majority
eg. police, teachers, doctors
people are more likely to obey them as we have learnt that they are morally right and legitimate through socialisation
what is destructive authority and destructive obedience
destructive authority - when power is used for destructive purposes
destructive obedience - when obedience results in harming others
outline the Hofling study on Titles and Settings
a Dr Smith called nurses at a hospital, telling them to give a patient drugs
here’s why they shouldn’t have obeyed:
1. nurses can’t take over the phone orders
2. the drug was unfamiliar
3. he was asking to administer twice the prescription
21 of 22 nurses obeyed
- this led to a lot of reform in hospitals
– this theory is limited bc it ignores the power of situational variables like proximity and location which have proven to be v powerful
what evidence is there for legitimacy of authority
Blass 2001
showed students Milgram’s study and asked who they felt was responsible
the majority said the experimenter because of legitimacy of authority and him being more knowledgable
what research was carried out on authoritarian personalities
Theodor Adorno
developed a questionnaire called the F-Scale (fascist scale) to test whether someone had an authoritarian personality
- he studied unconscious attitudes of antisemitism
sample: more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans
procedure: he carried out interviews to find out about political views and early life experiences
findings:
he mainly found that people that were harshly, physically punished as a child were antisemitic
often because they had bad experiences with a parent eg. dad beats child because of his mean, jewish, boss, the child uses the boss as a scapegoat and puts the hostility their feeling towards them. when they grow up they forget what dad did and just hate the scapegoat
conclusion: extreme obedience and racial prejudice lay in early childhood experiences, when personality is form
authoritarian personalities = extremely obedient
what is an authoritarian personality
extreme respect for authority, status and hierarchies; despises those they consider to be ‘weak’
has conventional attitudes towards gender, sexuality, race etc. is rigid in their beliefs
likely the result of harsh parenting with lots of discipline and expectation of ‘perfect’ behaviour; child is shown love if they act exactly as parents want them to
evaluate the idea of an authoritarian personality
+Elms & Milgram interviewed a small sample of Milgram’s original participants who had fully obeyed and found that when participants completed the F-Scale they scored significantly higher than those participants who had disobeyed
There is real-world evidence for the authoritarian personality as seen in the behaviour of
— can’t explain obedience of large groups of people eg. germans would have all had different personalities so this can’t explain why they obeyed the nazis
— the F-scale is very politically biased and people argue that it is very right-wing and ignores the possibility of left wing authoritarianism
— greenstein said it’s methodologically flawed and it suffers from acquiescence bias bc all the questions are worded in the same direction
leading q’s and a high score can be achieved by simply putting agree for everything, this invalidates the F-scale
what is social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence
when someone shares your view you have an ally, it increases confidence
it creates a smaller group within a large group
behaviour stands out less
the ally models the behaviour we are taught to be correct; they stand up for their views bc they disagree
Asch - if a non-conforming peer reconforms, so does the participant
evaluate social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence
+ when Asch did a variation with a dissenter that agreed with the naive participant, only 5% conformed, 95% resisted
+ hofling nurse study; 21/22 followed request when alone but only 1/18 followed when having social support from other nurses
– social support is over simplistic and focuses too much on surroundings vs person
– reliance on self reports
p’s are asked how much they think they were influenced by their peer
usually will say they weren’t influenced, but stats say that they were
define minority influence
when the minority influences the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of the majority; this leads to internalisation/conversion
outline the processes in minority influences
there are 3, they were found by Moscovici
- consistency: over time and between values of members of one group
inconsistency can suggest doubt and consistency draws attention, causing people to rethink their own views - commitment: willingness to make sacrifices, shows that you aren’t acting out of self interest
can draw attention with dramatic sacrifices (eg. throw in front of horse) - flexibility: willing to compromise
don’t have to sacrifice the dreams but maybe have one small win at a time
too much flexibility can make you look inconsistent
flexibility can make it seem like your working with the majority rather than against
over time people can convert via snowball effect
outline locus of control as an explanation of resistance to social influence
it measures an individuals sense of personal control over events in their life
Internal - personal control over events
External - up to other people/chance/fate
it is a continuous scale
Internal - can resist pressure of conform, more self confident, achievement orientated and have less need for approval
Milgram found a high internal locus of control in p’s that disobeyed in the first 4 studies
outline the study done on minority influence
Moscovici et al.
method: lab experiment
procedure: 6 female p’s, 2 of them are confederates
describe the colour of 36 slides (they’re all blue)
consistent condition - confeds say green to all slides
inconsistent condition - say green to 60%, blue for rest
results:
control - none, shows no ambiguity with slides
consistent condition: 8% moved to minority
inconsistent condition: 1.25% moved to minority
evaluate minority influence
– studying it in lab conditions has low EV
moscovici: saying blue/green is too trivial and has no consequence
confederates consistently said blue was green and people conformed 8.5% of the time
when inconsistent: 1.25%
– over simplistic theory, reduces the idea to solely group size and ignores important variables like power/status/commitment
+ Wood et al. supports importance of consistency, did a meta-analysis of approx. 100 studies about imp. of consistency and found that consistent minorities were the most influential; suggesting it’s a major factor
+ real life examples of minorities changing views over time (MLK, Suffragettes)
looking at underlying similarities allows researchers to identify valuable variables for success (eg. consistency / commitment / flexibility) can help people now fighting for env. rights etc.
define social change
changes in attitudes, behaviour, values and/or laws which take place on a large scale and affect society
what is the potential social cost of joining the minority
- labelling
–> people can be given a label that they don’t lose, everything they do is linked to the label - stigmatisation
what is social cryptomnesia
when members of the previous majority view forget and diminish the fights that occurred to reach the equality there is now
evaluate social influence and social change
+ past evidence of successful social change
researchers can identify imp. variables for minorities to bring abt change (commitment/consistency/flexibility)
can be used my minorities today that are trying to make change (eg. environment ppl)
— Social change isn’t simple, many are settled in their views and unwilling to change. some suggest that these social barriers are mostly due to stereotypes eg. many still hide that they recycle in fear of being labelled ‘weird’ or a ‘tree-hugger’. so minority influence and social influence aren’t always fully effective because they can’t tackle these kinds of issues.
— social change is v slow
changing smoking and drunk driving attitudes took decades
this makes it very difficult to study/use to deliberately bring about change, extraneous variables are also likely to occur over long time periods (either beneficial or not to minority)
+ evidence of NSI causing change
Nolan (2008) told residents that most residents were trying to reduce energy use and found that this reduced energy use more than when residents were just asked to save energy
So NSI can lead to change and this has useful economic implications because it has reduced energy use
however desensitization did occur
evaluate locus of control (LoC) as an explanation of resistance to social influence
+ another researcher repeated milgrams baseline experiment and found that 37% of participants with a high internal LoC didn’t continue to the highest shock vs only 24% with a high external LoC didn’t continue to highest
— Rutter suggests that LoC is only influential in new situations
if you have previously obeyed/confirmed to a situation it’s likely they’ll do the same again, regardless of their LoC
— data analysis from the last 40 years found that there’s been an increase in externals but also an increase in obedience
why can using standard deviation be advantageous
SD isn’t easily distorted by a single extreme score
it takes account the distance of all scores form the mean
it doesn’t just show the distance between the highest and lowest scores
what is obedience
a form of social influence where a direct order is followed by an individual, the person issuing the order usually has authority and power to punish
