Topic 1 - Social Influence

Question 1

Conformity

Answer 1

When the behaviour of an individual or small group is influenced by a larger or dominant group

Question 2

three different types of conformity

Answer 2

• Internalisation
• compliance
• identification

Question 3

Internalisation

Answer 3

going along with the majority and believing in their views - you’ve accepted and internalised them so they’re now your own too

This might happen if you’re in an unfamiliar situation , where you don’t know what the ‘correct’ way to behave is . So you’d look to others for information about how to behave . This type of influence is informational social influence

Question 4

Compliance

Answer 4

Compliance is where you go along with the majority, even if you don’t share their views.

You do this just to appear ‘normal’ - going against the majority might lead to exclusion or rejection from the group. This type of influence is called normative social influence.

Question 5

Identification

Answer 5

Identification is conforming to what’s expected of you to fulfil a social role.

This means changing your behaviour because you want to fit a specific role in society (e.g. a nurse), or trying to imitate the behaviour of a role model.

Question 6

2 explanations of conformity

Answer 6

• Normative social influence (NSI)
• informational social influence (ISI)

Question 7

what did Sherif (1935) test ?

Answer 7

Conformity and the autokinetic effect

The effect of informational social influence

Sherif researched whether people are influenced by others when they’re doing an ambiguous task.

Question 8

Sherif (1935) - Method

Answer 8

This was a laboratory experiment with a repeated measures design. Sherif used a visual illusion called the autokinetic effect, where a stationary spot of light, viewed in a dark room, appears to move.
Participants were falsely told that the experimenter would move the light. They had to estimate how far it had moved. In the first phase, individual participants made repeated estimates. They were then put into groups of 3 people, where they each made their estimate with the others present. Finally, they were retested individually.

Question 9

Sherif (1935) - Results

Answer 9

When they were alone, participants developed their own stable estimates (personal norms), which varied widely between participants. Once the participants were in a group, the estimates tended to converge and become more alike. When the participants were then retested on their own, their estimates were more like the group estimates than their original guesses.

Question 10

Sherif (1935) - Conclusion

Answer 10

Participants were influenced by the estimates of other people, and a group norm developed.
Estimates converged because participants used information from others to help them — they were affected by informational social influence.

Question 11

What did Asch (1951) test ?

Answer 11

Conformity on an unambiguous task

Looked at the effects of Normative social influence

Asch designed an experiment to see whether people would conform to a majority’s incorrect answer in an unambiguous task (one where the answer is obvious).

Question 12

Asch (1951) - Method

Answer 12

Asch carried out a laboratory experiment with an independent groups design. In groups of 8, participants judged line lengths by saying out loud which comparison line (1, 2 or 3) matched the standard line. Each group contained only one real participant- the others were confederates
(who acted like real participants but were really helping the experimenter). The real participant always went last or last but one, so that they heard the others’ answers before giving theirs. Each participant did 18 trials. On 12 of these (the critical trials) the confederates all gave the same wrong answer.
There was also a control group, where the participants judged the line lengths in isolation.

Question 13

Asch (1951) - Result

Answer 13

In the control trials, participants gave the wrong answer 0.7% of the time. In the critical trials, participants conformed to the majority (gave the same wrong answer) 37% of the time. 75% conformed at least once.
Afterwards, some participants said they didn’t really believe their answers, but didn’t want to look different.

Question 14

Asch (1951) - Conclusion

Answer 14

The control condition showed that the task was easy to get right. However, 37% were wrong on the critical trials - they conformed to the majority due to normative social influence.

Question 15

Asch (1951) - Evaluation

Answer 15

This was a laboratory experiment, so there was good control of the variables. This minimises the effects of extraneous variables. Strict control of the variables also means that you could easily repeat the study to see if you get the same results. However, because the participants weren’t in a natural situation, the study lacks ecological validity. Whether they were right or wrong it didn’t really matter to the participants as there was no consequences

Question 16

What situational factors influenced Asch’s participants ?

Answer 16

Group size
Unanimity / social support
Task difficulty

Question 17

Dispositional factors that can effect conformity

Answer 17

Confidence
Gender

Question 18

Social roles

Answer 18

The sets of behaviours and expectations that come with positions people hold in society (e.g. student,brother and son)

Question 19

What did Zimbardo et al (1973) study ?

Answer 19

Stanford prison experiment (SPE)

Conformity to social roles

Zimbardo et al set up a mock prison to see if people would conform to the assigned roles of prisoner or guard.

Question 20

Zimbardo et al (1973) - Method

Answer 20

Male students were recruited to act as either guards or prisoners in a mock prison. They were randomly given the roles of prisoner or guard, and their behaviour was observed. The prisoners were ‘arrested’ as they went about their day, taken to ‘prison’ and given uniforms and numbers. The guards also wore uniforms and mirrored sunglasses.

Question 21

Zimbardo et al (1973) - Results

Answer 21

Initially, the guards tried to assert their authority and the prisoners resisted by sticking together.
The prisoners then became more passive and obedient, while the guards invented nastier punishments.
The experiment was abandoned early because some prisoners became very distressed.

Question 22

Zimbardo et al (1973) - Conclusion

Answer 22

Guards and prisoners adopted their social roles quickly. Zimbardo claims this shows that our social role can influence our behaviour -seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of guard.

Question 23

Zimbardo et al (1973) - Evaluation

Answer 23

This was a controlled observation, so there was good control of variables. However, because it was an artificial environment, the results can’t really be generalised to real-life situations. In terms of ethics, some participants found the experience very distressing. There’s also a problem with observer (Zimbardo) bias

Question 24

What did Reicher and Haslam (2006) test?

Answer 24

The BBC prison study

recreated a similar situation to Zimbardo’s
experiment, but they were particularly interested to see how the group dynamics changed over time.

Developed the ideas in Zimbardo study

Question 25

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Method

Answer 25

This was a controlled observation in a mock prison, which was filmed for television. The participants were 15 male volunteers who had responded to an advert. They were randomly assigned to 2 groups - 5 were guards and 10 were prisoners. They had daily tests to measure levels of depression, compliance with rules, and stress. The prisoners knew that one of them, chosen at random, would become a guard after 3 days. An independent ethics committee had the power to stop the experiment at any time in order to protect the participants.

Question 26

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Results

Answer 26

The guards failed to form a united group and identify with their role. They didn’t always exercise their power and said they felt uncomfortable with the inequality of the situation.

The study was abandoned early on the advice of the ethics committee, as the participants showed signs of stress.

Question 27

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Conclusion

Answer 27

The participants didn’t fit into their expected social roles, suggesting that these roles are flexible.

Question 28

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Evaluation

Answer 28

In contrast to Zimbardo’s findings, Reicher and Haslam’s prisoners were a strong group, and the guards were weak. However, it’s possible that this was because Reicher and Haslam’s guards were not as empowered as Zimbardo’s, who were actively encouraged to maintain order. This study has been criticised for being made for TV- many people (including Zimbardo) argued that elements of it were staged and the participants played up to the cameras.

Question 29

Obedience

Answer 29

acting in response to a direct order , usually from an authority figure

Question 30

What did Milgram (1963) study ?

Answer 30

Obedience to authority

Question 31

Milgram (1963) - Method

Answer 31

40 men
Participants were assigned the role of “teacher” and instructed to administer electric shocks to a “learner” in a neighboring room. The learner was actually an actor, or confederate, who was not actually shocked

The teacher read word pairs to the learner, who would indicate their answer with lights. If the learner gave an incorrect answer, the teacher would shock them, increasing the voltage with each incorrect answer. The learner would act out scripted responses, including pleading to stop and eventually feigning unconsciousness

Question 32

Milgram (1963) -Results

Answer 32

26 participants (65%) administered 450 V and none stopped before administering 300 V (when the learner banged on the wall). Most participants showed obvious signs of stress like sweating, groaning and trembling.

Question 33

Milgram (1963) - Conclusion

Answer 33

Ordinary people will obey orders to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience.

Question 34

Good and bad points of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 34

1) Internal validity: It’s possible that participants didn’t really believe they were inflicting electric shocks — they were just going along with the experimenter’s expectations (showing demand characteristics).
But Milgram claimed participants’ stressed reactions showed they believed the experiment was real.

2) Ecological validity: Milgram’s participants did a task that they were unlikely to encounter in real life (shocking someone). So the study lacks ecological validity. However, because it was a laboratory experiment there was good control of the variables, so it’s possible to establish cause and effect.

Question 35

Milgram’s agency theory

Answer 35

stated when we feel we’re acting out the wishes of another person (being their agent) , we feel less responsible for our actions

Question 36

Agentic shift

Answer 36

People can start off acting in an autonomous way (thinking for themselves), but then become obedient.

When Milgram’s participants arrived for the experiment they were in an autonomous state, but as soon as they started following orders they underwent an agentic shift, and entered an agentic state.

Question 37

Binding factors that might have kept Milgram’s participants in the agentic state

Answer 37

-Reluctance to disrupt the experiment
- The pressure of the surroundings
- The insistence of the authority figure

Question 38

What else can obedience depend on ?

Answer 38

The legitimacy of the authority

If they are legitimate authorities than we are more likely to obey them

Question 39

Adorno et al (1950) - Authoritarian personality

Answer 39

proposed that over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly, because they learn strict obedience to their parents.

Adorno et al defined the collection of traits that they thought resulted from over-strict parenting as the authoritarian personality.

Question 40

What scale did Adorno et al (1950) develop ?

Answer 40

F-scale

Measures how strongly people express authoritarian traits

Question 41

What can make people resistant to social influence ?

Answer 41

• Social support can make people more resistant
• aspects of personality

Question 42

Internal locus of control

Answer 42

People feel a stronger sense of control over their lives than people with an external locus of control. More likely to exhibit independent behaviour

People with an external locus control may be more likely to conform or obey

Question 43

What did Moscovici et al (1969) research into ?

Answer 43

Minority influence

Question 44

Moscovici et al (1969) - Method

Answer 44

This was a laboratory experiment into minority influence using 192 women. In groups of 6 at a time, participants judged the colour of 36 slides. All of the slides were blue, but the brightness of the blue varied. Two of the six participants in each group were confederates. In one condition the confederates called all 36 slides ‘green’ (consistent) and in another condition they called 24 of the slides ‘green’ and 12 of the slides ‘blue’ (inconsistent). A control group was also used which contained no confederates.

Question 45

Moscovici et al (1969) - Results

Answer 45

In the control group the participants called the slides ‘green’ 0.25% of the time. In the consistent condition 8.4% of the time participants adopted the minority position and called the slides ‘green’, and 32% of the participants called the slides ‘green’ at least once. In the inconsistent condition the participants moved to the minority position of calling the slides ‘green’ only 1.25% of the time.

Question 46

Moscovici et al (1969) - Conclusion

Answer 46

The confederates were in the minority but their views appear to have influenced the real participants.
The use of the two conditions illustrated that the minority had more influence when they were consistent in calling the slides ‘green’.

Question 47

Moscovici et al (1969) - Evaluation

Answer 47

This study was a laboratory experiment, so it lacked ecological validity because the task was artificial.
The participants may have felt that judging the colour of the slide was a trivial exercise - they might have acted differently if their principles were involved. Also, the study was only carried out on women, so it can’t be generalised to men

Question 48

Minority influence is stronger if the minority …

Answer 48

• Is consistent
• is flexible

Question 49

What does Moscovici conversion theory (1980) suggest ?

Answer 49

That majority and minority influence are different processes

Question 50

Majority influence

Answer 50

People compare their behaviour to the majority (social comparison), and change their behaviour to fit in without considering the majority’s views in detail.
So majority influence involves compliance — it doesn’t always cause people to change their private feelings, just their behaviour.

Question 51

Minority influence

Answer 51

When a minority is consistent people may actually examine the minority’s beliefs in detail because they want to understand why the minority sees things differently.
This can lead to people privately accepting the minority view — they convert to the minority position.
Social pressure to conform may mean their behaviour doesn’t actually change, at least at first.

Question 52

What three factors does the social impact theory outline ?

Answer 52

Latane and Wolfs social impact theory (1981) :

1)
Strength - how powerful, knowledgeable, and consistent the group appear to be.
2)
Numbers — how many people are in the group.
3)
Immediacy — how close the source of influence is to you (physically, or in terms of a relationship).

Question 53

What is informational social influence ?

Answer 53

is a form of influence, which is the result of a desire to be right - looking to others as a way of gaining evidence about reality.

Question 54

What is normative social influence ?

Answer 54

is a form of influence whereby an individual conforms with the expectations of the majority in order to gain approval or to avoid social disapproval.