Topic 1 - Social Influence (complete!!!!) Flashcards

Question

Describe Zimbardo's findings with his (1973) Stanford Prison experiment (SPE) on social roles

Answer 1

Guards took up their role with enthusiasm Within 2 days prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment - ripped their uniforms, shouted + swore Guards retaliated with fire extinguishers After rebellion put down prisoners became depressed + more submissive whilst guards became more aggressive (conforming to their social roles) Guards became crueller - harassed prisoners + highlighted difference in social roles by creating opportunities to enforce the rules Guards punished smallest of misdemeanours - seemingly enjoyed the power imbalance + control Prisoners began to show signs of DEINDIVIDUATION - referred to themselves by their numbers instead of their names 1 prisoner released on day 1 - showed signs of psychological distress 2 more ppts released on 4th day Zimbardo had to end study 6 days in instead of intended 14 - described how he began to feel DEINDIVIDUATED himself

Answer 2

Social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals behaviour - guards became more brutal + prisoners became more submissive Such roles easily taken on by all ppts - even volunteers who came to fill in specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison instead of a psychological study

Answer 3

WEAKNESS Lacks fully informed consent as some details of study left out to avoid demand characteristics Psychological harm - study had to be called off early due to psychological harm, one even had to leave earlier as they suffered a mental breakdown Right to withdraw - prisoners unable to leave (unless it was an extreme case) , instead they could 'apply for parole' Therefore difficult to balance the value of Zimbardo's research findings when it came at such a high cost

Answer 4

1. Zimbardo did not know the full extent of what would happen in his experiment - didn't know how far it would deviate from its original purpose and therefore unable to fully inform ppts in the first place 2. Zimbardo's experiment was the catalyst for the genuine consideration of ethics in psychological research - value of his research may extend past his contribution to understanding conformity and into psychological research as a whole

Answer 5

STRENGTH High level of control due to methods used to select ppts Ppts interviewed to make sure they were emotionally stable + had no prior history of criminality Guards + prisoners randomly assigned - meant that if guards + prisoners behaved very differently, but were only in those roles by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself + not personality differences Increased INTERNAL VALIDITY - researcher much more confident that findings relate to initial hypothesis Therefore we can be more confident in drawing conclusions - increases the CREDIBILITY of the research overall

Answer 6

WEAKNESS Banuazizi + Movahedi argued that ppts merely 'play acting' rather than conforming to a role - showed DEMAND CHARACTISITCS Ppts performance based on stereotypes of prisoners + guards and how they stereotypically act rather than actually conforming e.g. one of the guards claimed they based his role on a character from a film Also explains why prisoners revolted - thought that was what real prisoners did Therefore findings tell us very little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons

Answer 7

STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to lack of realism argument) McDermott argues that ppts did conform to social roles + acted as if prison was real e.g. 90% of prisoners' conversations were about prison life - discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their 'sentences' were over Prisoner '416' later explained how he believed the prison was a real one run by psychologists rather than the government Multiple ppts had to leave early because of psychological distress - unlikely this was fake so prison must have had some realism to have effect on ppts Suggests SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners + guards in real prisons - gives study high degree of INTERNAL VALIDITY

Answer 8

WEAKNESS Fromm argued that Zimbardo may have been overly exaggerative e.g. only one third of guards actually behaved in a brutal manner - another third tried to apply behaviour fairly + last third actively tried to help and support prisoners Significant majority of prisoners sympathised + reinstated privileges to prisoners Most guards able to resist situational pressures to conform to the brutal role of guard Suggests Zimbardo overstated view that SPE ppts were conforming to social roles + minimised influence of DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS e.g. personality

Answer 9

WEAKNESS Zimbardo's explanation = conforming to social role comes 'naturally' + easily - being given role of guard means that these ppts will inevitably behave brutally because its the behaviour expected for that role Zimbardo believed that social roles overrides a person's moral beliefs, no matter how strong they may be Reicher + Haslam (2006) criticised Zimbardo's explanation as it does not account for behaviour of non-brutal guards Used social identity theory instead to argue that guards had to actively identify with their social roles to act cruelly Therefore Zimbardo's reasoning may not be accurate to explain experiment findings - only focused on behaviour of a small group of ppts (i.e. the brutal guards)

Answer 10

Aim : to investigate the extent that people will obey, even if it meant harming others (in context to German soldiers in Holocaust camps) Sample = 40 American male volunteers - told that experiment was on 'memory' Each ppt introduced to another ppt (secretly a confederate) Drew lots to see who would be the 'teacher' (T) and 'learner' (L) - however draw was actually fixed so that ppt would always be the teacher 'Experimenter' (E) also involved (confederate dressed in a lab coat) Two rooms in Yale interaction lab used - one for L and one for T + E L strapped to chair with electrodes (fake) + asked to learn word pairs - T tests him by naming word and asking L for matching word T asked to administer (fake) electric shock every time L makes mistake - increasing shock level each time Shock ranged from 15V (slight shock) to 450V (labelled 'danger - severe shock') Confederate (L) gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) - if ppt hesitated E gave series of prods to make them continue

Answer 11

Experimenter gave 4 prods when ppt hesitated to administer electric shocks: - "Please continue" - "The experiment requires you to continue" - "It is absolutely essential that you continue" - "You have no other choice but to continue"

Answer 12

Every ppt delivered shocks up to 300V (labelled 'intense shock') 12.5% stopped at 300V 65% continued to highest level - 450V i.e. they were fully obedient Also collected qualitative data via observations - ppts showed signs of extreme tension e.g. sweating, stuttering + digging their fingernails into their palms 3 ppts had 'uncontrollable seizures' Before experiment asked 14 psychology students to predict ppts behaviour - predicted that no more than 3% would go up to 450V (shows that findings were unexpected) Concluded that Germans were not 'more obedient' - American ppts also willing to obey orders even if it meant harming others Suspected that there were other factors that influence obedience (explored in study variations)

Answer 13

WEAKNESS Deception: - ppts told that experiment was on memory when it was actually on obedience - Thought that allocation of 'teacher' + 'learner' roles were random when they were actually fixed - Thought electric shocks were real when they were actually fake - Thought 'learner' was a real ppt when they were actually a confederate Lack of informed consent : ppts were not told full aim of study Psychological harm : ppts shown visible signs of distress, 3 even had full uncontrollable seizures Right to withdraw : 'experimenter's' prods (e.g. "you must continue") made ppts feel as if they could not drop out of study HOWEVER - At end of study ppts were debriefed + told that their behaviour was completely normal - Ppts sent follow up questionnaire, 84% said they were glad they participated - However psychologist Baumrind criticised Milgram for deceiving his ppts - believed that this could cause serious psychological consequences for ppts

Answer 14

STRENGTH Milgram's findings replicated in French documentary about reality TV Documentary focused on game show made for the programme Ppts in 'game' believed they were contestant for pilot episode of new show Ppts paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other ppts (who were actually confederates) in front of a studio audience 80% of ppts delivered maximum shock of 460V to an apparently unconscious man - behaviour almost identical to Milgram's ppts (e.g. nail biting + other signs of anxiety) Supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to an authority + demonstrates that findings weren't just due to special circumstances

Answer 15

WEAKNESS Milgram reported that 75% of ppts said they believed the shocks were genuine Orne + Holland (1968) argue that ppts behaved as they did because they didn't believe in the set up i.e. they were 'play-acting' Perry's (2013) research confirms argument - listened to tapes of Milgram's ppts + reported that only 1/2 believed shocks were real Suggests ppts may have been responding to DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS, tried to please the researcher instead of actually obeying Therefore Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test i.e. study lacks INTERNAL VALIDITY

Answer 16

STRENGTH (COUNTERPOINT to internal validity argument) Sheridan + King (1972) = conducted study like Milgram's, however this time shocks were real Ppts (all students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter Despite real stress of animal, 54% of the men + 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock Suggests that even with the INTERNAL VALIDITY argument, effects in Milgram's study were genuine because similar results found in studies where shocks were actually real

Answer 17

WEAKNESS Halsam (2014) showed that Milgram's ppts obey once experimenter gave the first 3 verbal prods However every ppt who was given the 4th prod ("You have no other choice, you must go on") disobeyed without exception According to social identity theory ppts in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research Because ppts identified with the 'scientific' study, they were more likely to obey as they felt like they were contributing to something scientific for a better cause When ppts ordered to blindly obey with the 4th prod, they refused Shows that social identity theory may provide a more VALID interpretation of Milgram's findings instead of just surmising findings to 'blind obedience'

Answer 18

Proximity = situational variable that affects obedience 1. Proximity procedure : - Teacher and Learner now in the same room 1. Proximity findings : - Obedience rate dropped from original 65% to 40% 2. Touch proximity procedure : - Learner's hand placed onto an 'electroshock plate' - If learner refused to place hand there himself Teacher had to force their hand onto it 2. Touch proximity findings : - Obedience dropped to 30% 3. Remote instructions procedure : - Experimenter left room + gave instructions to Teacher by telephone - Proximity between authority figure reduced 3. Remote instructions findings : - Obedience reduced to 20.5% - Ppts frequently pretended to give shocks Overall conclusions: - Decreased proximity from victim allows ppts to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions - The further away the learner is from the ppt, the less aware they are of the harm they were causing so they were more obedient

Answer 19

Location = situational variable that affects obedience Procedure : - Conducted study in run down office block instead of prestigious setting of Yale University Findings : - Obedience fell to 47.5% Conclusions: - Prestigious environment of baseline study gave it legitimacy of authority - Ppts more obedient in baseline study because they thought that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was therefore expected - However obedience still quite high in office block variation because ppts still identified with 'scientific' nature of the procedure

Answer 20

Uniform = situational variable that affects obedience Procedure : - In baseline study experimenter wore a grey lab coat (uniform) - In variation, experimenter called away at start of procedure - Role of experimenter taken over by an ' 'ordinary member of the public' (was actually a confederate) - Confederate was dressed in every day clothes instead of a lab coat Findings : - Obedience dropped to 20% - lowest out of all variations Conclusions : - Uniforms 'encourage obedience' - widely recognised as symbols for authority - Often expect that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate ( granted by society) - Therefore someone in ordinary clothes (no uniform) has less right to expect obedience

Answer 21

STRENGTH Bickman (1974) carried out FIELD EXPERIMENT in NYC : - 3 confederates dressed in different outfits - jacket and tie, a milkman's outfit + a security guards uniform - Confederates individually stood in street + asked passers-by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter - People twice as more likely to obey confederate dressed as security guard than one dressed in jacket and tie Supports Milgram's findings that situational variables, such as uniform, have a powerful effect on obedience

Answer 22

STRENGTH Meeus + Raaijmakers (1986) carried out a study to assess obdience in Dutch ppts: - Ppts ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) who was desperate for a job - 90% of ppts obeyed Researchers also replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity: - When authority figure giving orders was not physically present, obedience decreased dramatically Suggests Milgram's findings about obedience not just limited to Americans, but can be GENERALISED across cultures - findings APPLICABLE to more than one culture

Answer 23

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to cross-cultural support argument) - Smith + Bond (1998) identified just two replications between 1968-85 that took place in India and Jordan - both countries quite culturally different (e.g. collectivist) from US (Milgram's original sample) - - However many cross-cultural studies supporting Milgram e.g. Meeus + Raaijmaker's Dutch study, focus on countries quite culturally similar (e.g. individualistic) in terms of their attitudes towards authority) - so findings would naturally be similar Therefore may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgram's findings (including those about proximity, location + uniform) are APPLICABLE or can be GENERALISED to all cultures Supporting cultural research BIASED towards individualist societies

Answer 24

WEAKNESS Ppts may have been aware the procedure was fake Orne + Holland (1968) = made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study + argued that it is even more likely ppts were aware in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables E.g. In the uniform variation ('experimenter' replaced by 'general member of the public') - even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some ppt may have worked out the truth Therefore there is a very high likelihood that ppts displayed DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS Means that in all of Milgram's studies (which includes variations) it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because ppts saw through the DECEPTION and simply 'play-acted' Therefore INTERNAL VALIDITY of Milgram's studies questionable

Answer 25

Situational perspective criticised by Mandel (1998) - argues that it offers an excuse or 'alibi' for evil behaviour In his view, its offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders because of a uniform or the location - excuses them of their actions by placing blame on situational factors rather than the person themselves Milgram also ignored role of DISPOSITIONAL (e.g. personality), implying that Nazi's were actually 'victims' of situational factors beyond their control Therefore need to be careful with Milgram's research into obedience as it could support a theory that can be used to excuse cruel behaviour

Answer 26

- Agentic state = person is acting on behalf of an authority figure with the belief that they hold no responsibility for their actions ; instead believe that responsibility falls on authority figure - During agentic state person becomes an 'agent' for authority - Agent is not an unfeeling puppet - they experience 'MORAL STRAIN' (i.e. high anxiety) when they realise what they're doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey - Autonomous state = person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions - Agentic shift = shift from autonomous state to agentic state - Milgram suggested this happened when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure - Authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the SOCIAL HEIRACHY

Answer 27

- Milgram observed that many of his ppts wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so - Concluded that binding factors is what kept his ppts in the agentic state - Binding factors = aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'MORAL STRAIN' they are feeling - Milgram proposed number of binding factors that an individual uses e.g. shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims

Answer 28

STRENGTH Milgram's own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience Most of Milgram's ppts resisted giving shocks at some point, and asked the experimenter questions about the procedure (ppts experienced a degree of moral strain) One question most ppts asked = "Who is responsible if the learner is harmed?" When experimenter replied "I am responsible" majority of ppts went through the procedure quickly with no objections (ppts were in the agentic state) Shows that once ppts perceived they were no longer responsible for their actions and that the responsibility was shifted to the authority figure, they acted more easily as the experimenter's agent - as Milgram predicted This also happened in many of Milgram's study variations - increases the VALIDITY of his theory with the large amount of research support

Answer 29

WEAKNESS Agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings on obedience from OTHER psychologists E.g. Rank + Jacobson (1977) = found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug does to a patient Doctor was an obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained in an autonomous state when Milgram's theory would've predicted that agentic shift should occur Suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience - therefore a limited explanation as it can only be applied to obedience to an extent

Answer 30

WEAKNESS Mandel (1998) described on incident in WW2 involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101 These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so i.e. they acted autonomously Therefore the foundations of Milgram's theory may no be as secure as we initially thought : If these soldiers seemingly acted 'autonomously' then who's to say that the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust also acted 'autonomously' and therefore the 'agentic state' never existed in the first place - they are simply using 'following orders from an authority figure' as an excuse for their actions

Answer 31

- Most societies structured in a HEIRACHICAL way - means that people in certain positions hold more authority e.g. police - Authority these people wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society - Most accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exert social power over others because it allows society to function smoothly - One consequence of legitimacy of authority = some people have power to punish others - Most are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately - We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood e.g. from parents + teachers - Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes DESTRUCTIVE e.g. Hitler : authority orders people to behave cruelly - Destructive authority also seen in Milgram's study - experimenter ordered ppts to act against their conscience

Answer 32

STRENGTH Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority Kilham + Mann (1974) : found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study Mantell (1971) : found that 85% of German ppts went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study Shows that, in some cultures, authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals Theory can be APPLIED to reflect the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Answer 33

WEAKNESS Theory cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted E.g. Rank + Jacobson (1977) = found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug does to a patient - even though the doctor was a widely accepted legitimate authority Significant minority of Milgram's ppts (12.5%) disobeyed despite the experimenter's scientific authority Suggests that DISPOSITIONAL factors might have a bigger role in obedience - some people may just be more obedient than others Some psychologists argue that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure Means that legitimacy of authority may be a limited explanation for obedience as it does not explain the opposite side of it - disobedience

Answer 34

STRENGTH Rank + Jacobson = found that 16/18 nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority (a doctor) However (COUNTERPOINT) Kelman + Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the power of hierarchy in the US army My Lai Massacre = during Vietnam war 504 unarmed civilians killed by American soldiers. Soldiers blew up buildings + burned down the villages they lived in Psychologist argue that the Commanding officers who ordered these soldiers to conduct this massacre operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish Therefore legitimacy of authority may be a more VALID explanation for obedience than we think - especially when APPLIED TO REAL LIFE and destructive authority

Answer 35

- Created by Adorno et al - A PSYCHODYNAMIC explanation - AP forms during childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting - Harsh parenting = extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and harsh criticisms for failing - Those who received conditional love during childhood more likely to develop AP - These childhood experiences create resentment and hostility, but child cannot express this directly against their parents from fear of punishment - Therefore their anger is DISPLACED onto those they regard 'socially inferior' - known as SCAPEGOATING - Developed 'F-scale' (i.e. Fascism scale) to measure if someone has an AP

Answer 36

- Show an extreme respect and submissiveness to authority - View society as 'weaker' than it once was, so believe we need strong leaders to reinforce traditional values - Show contempt for those they regard as 'socially inferior' to themselves - Prejudiced mindset fuelled by inflexible outlook on the word - believes that world is black and white - Very uncomfortable with uncertainty therefore blame the people who are the 'others' (e.g. those who belong to a different ethnic group to them) are responsible the the ills of society - These 'other' people are a convenient for the Authoritarians who are likely to obey orders from authority figures even when such orders are destructive (e.g. Nazi Germany)

Answer 37

- Studied more than 2000 middle-class white Americans and their UNCONCIOUS attitudes towards other ethnic groups - Developed the F-scale (i.e. the potential-for-fascism scale) to measure AP - Questions on F-scale included: "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn" "Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished"

Answer 38

- People with authoritarian leanings (i.e. those who scored high on the F-scale) identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak' - People who scored highly on F-scale also showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status - were also very conscious of status (their own and other's) - Found that authoritarian people has a certain CONGNITIVE STYLE : black and white thinking and distinctive stereotypes about other groups - Found a strong POSITIVE CORRELATION between authoritarianism and prejudice

Answer 39

STRENGTH Research support from Milgram + Elms (1966) : - INTERVIEWED small sample of ppts from the original obedience studies (Milgram) and were fully obedient i.e. went all the way up to 450V - All of the sample completed the F-scale (and other measures) as part of the interview - Found that these 20 fully obedient ppts scored significantly higher on the overall F-scale than a comparison/control group of 20 disobedient ppts Two groups clearly different in terms of authoritarianism Findings support Adorno's view that highly obedient people show similar characteristics go people who have an AP

Answer 40

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to research support argument) When researchers analysed individual subscales of the F-scale, found that the obedient ppts (in Milgram + Elms' research) had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians E.g. unlike authoritarians, Milgram's obedient ppts generally did not glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishment in their childhood and did not have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers Means that link between obedience and authoritarianism is more complex than Adorno suggested: - Obedient ppts who scored highly on F-scale were unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful and consistent predictor of obedience Therefore suggests that the AP is a limited dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 41

WEAKNESS Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour when it is the majority of a country's population E.g. In pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and antisemitic behaviour despite the fact that they must have differed in personality (i.e. not every individual who was obedient would have had an AP - this would've been extremely unlikely) An alternative view is that majority of Germans IDENTIFIED with the antisemitic Nazi state, and SCAPEGOATED the 'outgroup' of Jews = i.e. argue that SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY is a better explanation Therefore Adorno's theory is limited because an alternative explanation (i.e. social identity theory) is a much more realistic explanation when APPLIED to real life

Answer 42

WEAKNESS F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology e.g. nationalism Christie + Jahoda (1954) = argued that the F-scale is a POLITICALLY BIASED interpretation of the AP Argues that there is also left-wing authoritarianism e.g. Russian Bolshevism and Chinese Maoism Extreme right-wing and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common - e.g. both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority - however F-scale only measures how extreme right-wing a ppt is Means that Adorno's theory is not a COMPREHENSIVE dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum as the methodology used to measure this (F-scale) is POLITICALLY BIASED

Answer 43

WEAKNESS On the positive side, research with the F-scale has provided the basis of an explanation for obedience based on the AP However Greenstein (1969) calls the F-scale a "comedy of methodological errors" because its an extremely flawed scale E.g. possible the get a high score by just selecting the 'agree' answers - therefore anyone with this RESPONSE BIAS will be labelled as having an AP Therefore evidence for AP flawed - perhaps f-scale is too outdated + needs to be re-evaluated and remade to eliminate political bias and the possibility of response bias F-scale used in Adorno's research therefore lacks VALIDITY as some of his ppts may have been wrongly assessed as having an AP

Answer 44

- Pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming - E.g. in Asch's research the introduction of a DISSENTER decreased conformity (thus increasing resistance to authority) - Social support = the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey acts as a 'MODEL' for independent behaviour - Social support allows people to follow their own conscience instead of conforming - Dissent gives rise to more dissent (i.e. resistance) because it shows that the majority is no longer UNANIMOUS

Answer 45

- Pressure to obey can be resisted id there is another person who is seen to disobey - E.g. in one of Milgram's variations rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ppt was joined by a disobedient confederate - Ppts may not follow the disobedient person's behaviour - point is that the other person's disobedience acts as a 'MODEL' of dissent for the ppts to copy which frees them to act from their own conscience - Disobedient model challenges the LEGITIMACY of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey

Answer 46

STRENGTH There is research evidence for the positive effects of social support e.g. Albrecht et al (2006) : - Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, an eight week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke - Social support provided by a slightly older mentor (called a 'buddy') - At end of programme adolescents who had the 'buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than that of a control group who didn't have a 'buddy' Shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world - also has PRACTICAL REAL LIFE APPLICATION which can positively impact individuals

Answer 47

STRENGTH E.g. Gamson et al (1982): - Ppts were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign - Researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study compared to Milgram's because the ppts were in groups and could discuss what they were told to do (increases likelihood of dissenters in the groups) - 29 out of 33 groups of ppts (88%) rebelled against their orders (i.e. resisted obedience) - legitimacy of researcher's authority undermined by significant majority of ppts Shows that social support (via. dissenters) can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure - i.e. further research support for theory

Answer 48

Study by Allen + Levine (1971) showed that social support is dependant on who is giving it: - Used an Asch-type task where the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight - 64% of real ppts refused to conform - When there was no dissenter at all 3% refused to conform - However, in separate condition, when dissenter has obviously poor eyesight (e.g. wearing thick glasses) resistance was only 36% Questions VALIDITY of social support theory as it does not always guarantee resistance to social influence - in fact, it appears to be heavily reliant on contextual factors, something the theory hasn't predicted (therefore LIMITED explanation)

Answer 49

- Created by Rotter (1966) - Internal LOC (internals) - believe that the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves Example : If they do badly in an exam they believe its because they didn't work hard enough - External LOC (externals) - tend to believe that the things that happen to them are outside of their control Example : If they do badly in an exam they might blame it on the textbook or they had bad luck because the questions were too hard

Answer 50

- People aren't just 'internal' or 'external' - LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it - High internal LOC and high external LOC are on opposite ends of the continuum whilst the middle is varying degrees of both

Answer 51

- People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey - If person takes own responsibility for actions and experiences (internal LOC) they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on opinions of others - People with a high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident, more achievement oriented and have higher intelligence than external LOC therefore more able to resist social influence - High internal LOC also have characteristics of leaders (i.e. those with LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY) who have much less need for social approval than followers (e.g. external LOC)

Answer 52

STRENGTH Holland (1967) : - Repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether ppts were internals or externals - 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (i.e. resisted obedience) - Only 23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock level - Therefore internals showed a higher level of resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation Shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC - increases the VALIDITY of LOC as an explanation for resisting social influence

Answer 53

WEAKNESS (could be used as a COUNTERPOINT to supporting evidence argument) Twenge et al (2004) : - Analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period - Data showed that over this time span people became more resistant to social influence but also more external - Contradicts theory - if resistance is linked to high internal LOC then we should find a rise in internals, however evidence suggests the opposite Questions the VALIDITY of LOC as an explanation for resisting social influence as contradictory findings suggest otherwise

Answer 54

Rotter themselves point out that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence Argues that LOC's role depends on the situation i.e. a person's LOC only significantly affects their behaviour in NEW situations E.g. If a person has conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are that they will do so again regardless of whether they have a high internal or high external LOC Opens up discussion on the true intention of the LOC theory - if the person who created the theory themselves argues that LOC isn't the main factor in resisting social influence, then what is the theory's purpose? Perhaps LOC fills in the gap for explaining resistance in a more NICHE scenario (e.g. when in a NEW situation) rather than being the sole explanation for resistance as a whole I.e. only explains resistance to social influence up to a certain EXTENT

Answer 55

- Theory created by Moscovici (1969) - Situations where one person or a small group of people (i.e. a minority) influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people - Distinct from conformity where the majority is doing the influencing - Often leads to internalisation, both public and private beliefs are changed by the process

Answer 56

- Consistency - Commitment - Flexibility

Answer 57

- Over time, consistency increases the amount of interest from other people - Can take the form of agreement between people in the minority group : known as SYNCHRONIC consistency (everyone is saying the same thing) - Can take the form of minority having the same beliefs or behaviour over a long period of time : known as DIACHRONIC consistency (minority have been saying the same thing for a long time) - Consistent minority makes other people to start to rethink their own views: E.g. "Maybe they've got a point if they all think this way" (synchronic consistency) or "Maybe they've got a point if they keep saying this" (diachronic consistency)

Answer 58

- Minority must show commitment to their cause or views - Sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views - Important that these extreme activities present some risk to the minority because this shows greater commitment - Majority group members pay even more attention to a highly committed minority e.g. "Wow, she must really believe in what she's saying so perhaps I should consider her view" - Known as the AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

Answer 59

- Nemeth (1986) argued that consistency is not the only important factor in minority influence because it can be off-putting - Someone who is extremely consistent and only repeats the same old arguments and behaviours again and again can be seen as rigid, unbending and dogmatic - Consistency alone unlikely to gain many converts to the minority position - Instead, members of minority need to be prepared to adapt their viewpoint and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments - However being too flexible may make the minority look weak (e.g. "If she keeps changing her argument then is their cause even good to consider?") - Therefore need to strike a BALANCE between consistency and flexibility

Answer 60

- Hearing something you already agree with doesn't usually make you stop and think - However hearing something new makes you think more deeply - especially if the source of this other view is consistent, committed and flexible - DEEPER PROCESSING is important in conversion to a different minority viewpoint - Overtime, increasing numbers of people switch from the majority position to the minority position - they have been 'converted' - The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion - called the SNOWBALL EFFECT - Change has occurred when the minority has gradually become the majority

Answer 61

- Groups of 6 asked to view a set of 36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or green - In each group 2 people were confederates (therefore 4 real ppts in each group - the majority) - Two conditions = consistent minority and inconsistent minority - Also had a CONTROL GROUP with 0 confederates - In consistent minority confederates consistently said the slides were green - In inconsistent minority the confederates said the slides were green 24 times and blue 12 times

Answer 62

- In consistent minority the real ppts gave the same wrong answer ('green') 8.42% of the trials i.e. converted to minority view - In inconsistent minority agreement with minority answer ('green') by real ppts fell to 1.25% - For control group ppts gave incorrect answer ('green') 0.25% of the time - Concluded that consistency is a major factor in effective minority influence

Answer 63

STRENGTH Moscovici's (1969) blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of others than an inconsistent minority Wood et al (1994) : - Carried out a META-ANALYSIS of almost 100 similar studies - Found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were the most influential : supporting research is HIGHLY RELIABLE Suggests that presenting consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority - as the theory predicted

Answer 64

STRENGTH Evidence shows that a change in the majority's position does involve deeper processing of a minority's ideas E.g. Martin et al (2003) : - Presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured ppt's agreement - One group of ppts then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard a majority group agree with it - Ppts then exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again - Found that people were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority Suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a stronger enduring effect Research findings support the central argument about how minority influence works - increases theory VALIDITY

Answer 65

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting evidence argument) Studies often conducted in a highly controlled artificial lab therefore fails to truly replicate the real life complexities of minorities In the real world majorities often have a lot more power and status than the minorities Minorities in the real world are also much more committed as they often face hostile opposition These aspects are usually absent from minority influence research - the only feature of a minority that is usually conveyed is that it is the smallest group Therefore minorities in these studies are very superficial and do not tell us anything about minority influence in the real world COMPROMISES THE VALIDITY of the theory as supporting evidence lacks any real life application - if supporting evidence cannot be applied then how can we expect to apply the theory itself to real life situations?

Answer 66

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to supporting research argument) Tasks involved in supporting research are just as artificial as Ach's line task Includes Moscovici's blue/green slide study - we do not evaluate the colours of blue slides often (if ever) in real life Therefore research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life E.g. in jury cases and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important that the conditions in research studies, sometimes even a matter of life and death Means that findings of minority influence studies are lacking in EXTERNAL VALIDITY and are extremely limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real-world social situations Some psychologists even argue (its me, I'm psychologists) that minority influence research is INSULTING to real minorities who risk their lives for their viewpoint as their efforts are simply watered down to trivial tasks in corresponding research

Answer 67

In Moscovici et al's study, the figure of agreement with a consistent minority was very low - on average 8% Suggests that minority influence is quite rare and not a useful concept when trying to understand social change However, when ppts wrote down their answers privately (introduced ANONYMITY) , they were more likely to agree with the minority view Suggests that there may be even more factors e.g. anonymity, unknown in the original theory, that may affect minority influence

Answer 68

1. Drawing attention through social proof 2. Consistency 3. Deeper processing 4. The augmentation principle 5. The snowball effect 6. Social cryptoamnesia

Answer 69

Stage 1, 'drawing attention through social proof': - In 1950's black and white segregation applied to all parts of America - There were black neighbourhoods and some places where exclusive to whites - The civil rights marches drew attention to this situation, providing social proof of the problem

Answer 70

Stage 2, 'consistency': - Civil rights activists represented a minority of the American population, but their position remained consistent - Millions of people took part in many marches over several years + always conveyed the same non-aggressive messages (DIACHRONIC consistency)

Answer 71

Stage 3, 'Deeper processing': - Activism meant that many people who had simply accepted racism as the norm began thinking deeply about the unjustness of it

Answer 72

Stage 4, 'the augmentation principle': - Individuals risked their lives numerous times - E.g. the 'freedom riders' were mixed ethnic groups who boarded buses in the south, challenging racial segregation of transport - Many freedom riders were physically beaten - This personal risk indicated a strong belief and reinforces (i.e. arguments) their message to the majority

Answer 73

Stage 5, 'the snowball effect': - Activists gradually got the attention of the US government - More and more people began to back the minority position - In 1964 US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination, marking the change from minority to majority support for civil rights

Answer 74

Stage 6, 'social cryptoamnesia': - Social cryptoamnesia = when people know that social change has occurred but don't remember how it happened - People know that change (in terms of racism) has occurred but have no memory of the events that led to this change

Answer 75

- Asch highlighted importance of DISSENT in one of his variations where one of his confederates broke the unanimity of the group - Breaking unanimity encouraged others to do the same (i.e. the real ppt) - such dissent has the power to create social change - Research into environmental + health campaigns also exploit conformity processes by appealing to NSI to induce social change - Campaigns do this by providing info about what others are doing e.g. reducing litter by printing posters about how other people regularly recycle - Social change is encouraged using NSI by drawing attention to what the 'majority' are doing so that others conform

Answer 76

- Milgram's research demonstrates importance of disobedient role models (i.e. social support) - In variation where confederate teacher refuses to give fake electric shocks to learner the rate of obedience in the genuine ppt plummeted - Therefore disobedient role models can help start social change by encouraging others to do the same - Zimbardo suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of GRADUAL COMMITMENT: - Once one small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist are bigger order - people slowly 'drift' into a new kind of behaviour

Answer 77

STRENGTH Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people's energy use habits using an NSI centred campaign : - Researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in California every week for a month - Key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage (exploited mechanics of NSI) - As a control, some residents had a message that just asked them to save energy without referencing other people's behaviour - Significant decreases in energy usage in the experimental group compared to the control Shows that conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through the operation of normative social influence Increases the VALIDITY of the theory as an explanation for social change

Answer 78

WEAKNESS (COUNTERPOINT to normative influence research support argument) Some studies show that people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms Foxcroft et al (2015): - Reviewed social norms interventions as part of the 'gold standard' Cochrane Collaboration - Review included 70 studies where the social norms (i.e. NSI) approach was used to reduce student alcohol use - Only found a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency Therefore using NSI may only effective in changing certain behaviours (i.e. it's a LIMITED explanation) Also means that NSI may not always produce long-term social change

Answer 79

STRENGTH Nemeth (2009) claims social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire When people consider minority arguments, they engage in DIVERGENT THINKING Divergent thinking = broad rather than narrow, in which the thinker actively searches for info and weighs up more options rather than taking things for face value Nemeth argues divergent thinking leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues Minorities stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities cannot Shows why dissenting minorities are valuable within society- there's a general consensus amongst psychologists that minority influence does bring about social change

Answer 80

WEAKNESS Some people are supposedly converted to the minority because they think more deeply about the minority's views, however some psychologists think otherwise Mackie (1987) presents evidence that it is actually the majority's influence that may create deeper processing rather than the minority: - If you do not share the majority's view you are much more likely to deeply process than if you didn't share the view of a minority - This is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think the same way as us - When we find out that a majority believes something different, we are forced to deeply process their arguments and reasoning e.g. "why does everyone think differently to me?" Means that a central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting DOUBT on its VALIDITY as an explanation for social change

Answer 81

Research into social change generally provides practical advice to a minority wanting to influence majority opinion or behaviour However Bashir et al (2013) argues that there is still resistance to social change even if research findings are implemented: - Found that ppts were less likely to behave in an environmentally-friendly ways because they did not want to be associated with negative stereotypes linked to the minority position - Ppts described the minority (i.e. environmental activists) in negative ways e.g. 'tree-huggers' Therefore research into social change has questionable value when there are still major barriers to a change in the majority Arguments between psychologists means that social change is still heavily under-researched as there are still questions on how social change occurs and why some people still resist it (e.g. little research into how negative stereotypes affect a minority's influence)