Unit 1: Social influence Flashcards
1
Q
Who created the types of conformity?
A
Kelman (1958)
2
Q
What are the three types of conformity :
A
- internalisation
- identification
- compliance
3
Q
Who created a two process theory for conformity ?
A
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
4
Q
What are the two main reasons people conform ?
A
- ISI
- NSI
5
Q
Supports for explanations for conformity :
A
+ Lucas et al (2006) asked students to give answers to math problems that were easy and difficult – greater conformity to incorrect answers when questions were difficult rather than easy — shows people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer this is predicted by the ISI explanation
+ Asch (1951) found many of his p/pants went along with wrong answer as they were self-conscious of giving the correct answer and experiencing disapproval – when repeated but p/pants wrote down answers conformity fell to 12.5 —— supports NSI
6
Q
Criticism of explanations for conformity :
A
- individual differences
NSI does not effect everyones behaviour in the same way – people who are less concerned if people like them are likely to be less influenced by NSI (nAffiliators)
7
Q
Aschs procedure :
A
- showed p/pants 2 white cards at a time - one with one line on ‘standard line’ and the other with 3 ‘comparison lines’ on – they were then asked which line matched the standard
- 123 male undergrads
- each naive p/pant was tested with 6 and 8 confeds
- first few trials confeds gave right answers
- they were then instructed to give the same wrong answer
- each p/pant took part in 18 trials and on 12 of them all confederates gave the wrong answers
8
Q
Aschs findings :
A
- naive p/pants gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time
- 25% did not conform in any trials
- 75% conformed at least once
9
Q
Aschs variations :
A
- group size
- task difficulty
- unanimity
9
Q
What is unanimity ?
A
when asch introduced another confederate who disagreed with the others
10
Q
How did the group size variation effect conformity ?
A
Asch found that with 3 confeds conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8% but any more than this made little difference
11
Q
How did the unanimity variation effect conformity ?
A
the present of a dissenting confed reduced conformity by a quarter compared to when the majority was unanimous
12
Q
How did the task difficulty variation effect conformity ?
A
conformity increased suggesting ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder
13
Q
Criticisms of Asch’s research :
A
- the 1950s were an especially conformist time in America, and therefore it made sense to conform to established social norms but society has changed since then and people are possibly less conformist today
- only men were tested by Asch and other research suggests that women might be more conforming as they are more concerned about social relationships – collectivist cultures also see higher conformity rates ( Neto 1995)
- naive participants were decieved as they believed the confeds were also genunine participants — this should be weighed up against benefits gained from this study
14
Q
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment procedure :
A
- mock prison in basement of psychology department at Stanford
- volunteer sampling among students and selected those who were deemed ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological testings
-randomly assigned prisoner or guard - prisoners were arrested from their homes and were delivered to the prison then blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a uniform and number
- prisoners routines heavily regulated they had 16 rules to follow which were enforced by guards
- guards had a uniform and a wooden club, handcuffs, key and mirror shades - they also had complete power over the prisoners
15
Q
Support for Zimbardo’s experiment :
A
+ selection of p/pants was randomly allocated to rule out individual personality experiences – increases the internal validity
15
Q
Zimbardo’s findings :
A
- stopped after 6 days not 14
- within two days prisoners rebelled and guards responded using fire extinguishers
- guards tried to play the prisoners against eachother
- 1 released after first day due to psychological disturbance
- 2 more on 4th day
- one went on a hunger strike and was shunned by the other prisoners
- guards behaved more brutally and aggressively as it went on
16
Q
Criticisms for Zimbardo’s experiment:
A
- ethical issued - a p/pant was refused the right to withdraw by Zimbardo
- Haslam’s (2006) replication the BBC prison study got very different findings - prisoners took control of mock prison as the guards failed to develop a shared social identity while the prisoners did
- Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued they were play acting the roles based on stereotypes and that this would explain why the prisoners rioted as they believed that what real prisoners did
17
Q
Milgrams procedure :
A
- 40 male p/pants through newspaper ads and flyers in post
- stated he was looking for participants for a study about memory
- aged between 20 and 50 with varying job levels
- rigged a draw so they get teacher
- teacher required to give learner a shock everytime they got an answer wrong
- shock level started at 15 and rose 30 levels to 450 volts
- at 300 learner pounded on door and then went quiet
- after 315 they pounded on wa;; and no further reponse was given
- teacher told by experimentor that no answer means a wrong answer and to continue
18
Q
What were the 4 prods that experimentors told the teachers in Milgram’s experiment ?
A
1 - “please continue”
2 - ‘The experiment requires that you continue’
3 - ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue
4 - ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
19
Q
Milgram’s p/pants after the experiment ?
A
they were debrief and assured their behaviour was normal - also sent a follow up questionnaire where 84% felt glad they participated
19
Q
Milgram’s findings :
A
- none stopped before 300
- 5 stopped at 300
- 65% continued to 450 volts
- Qualitative data showed signs of extreme tension and even a full blown seizure in 3 cases
19
Q
Support of Milgram’s study :
A
+ Hofling (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high – 21 out of 22 nurses obeying
19
Q
Criticisms of Milgram’s study :
A
- Baumrind criticised the way that Milgram deceived his p/pants - led them to believe roles were random but they were fixed - also told them the shocks were real - betrayal of trust that could damage psychology
- Orne and Holland (1968) argued that p/pants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up and guessed they weren’t real electric shocks - in this case he wasn’t studying what he thought he was - lacks internal validity
20
What are the 3 different proximity variations :
- same room as learner
- touch proximity condition
- remote instruction condition
20
Milgrams variations :
- proximity
- uniform
- location
21
When in the same room as the learner what did obedience drop to ?
from 65% to 40%
22
In the touch proximity condition what did the obedience drop to ?
to 30%
23
In the remote instruction condition what did obedience drop to ?
20.5%
24
Where was the location variation ?
in a run down office building not Yale
25
In the location variation what did obedience drop to ?
from 65% to 47.5%
26
In the uniform condition what did obedience drop to ?
20%
27
What variation caused the lowest obedience rate in Milgram's study ?
the uniform variation - 20%
28
Support of Milgram's variations :
+ Miranda et al (1981) found obedience rates of over 90% amongst Spanish students - showing Milgrams conclusions aren't limited to males or Americans
29
Criticisms of Milgram's variations :
- Milgram's findings from his variations support a situational explanation for obedience - this is criticised by Mandel (1998) who argues that it offers an excuse for behaviour of Nazi's and is offensive to survivors of the holocaust
- In the uniform variation even Milgram recognised that some p/pants may have worked out the truth - unclear whether results are due to obedience or because p/pants acted how they believed they were supposed to
- Bond and Smith (1998) point out most replicas were taken place in Western societies which are culturally not that different from the USA, so it would be premature to conclude that his findings on his variations apply to people everywhere
30
What does autonomous state mean?
a person feeling free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their actions
31
What is it called when you shift from an autonomous to agentic state ?
agentic shift
32
When did Milgram suggest agentic shift occured ?
when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority greater than them
33
What are binding factors ?
aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling - such as shifting responsibility to the victim of denying damage done
34
Consequences of legitimacy of authority ?
- some people are granted power to punish other
- problems arise when it becomes destructive - shown in Milgram's study
35
Supports of agentic state :
+ Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who was responsible - they blamed experimentor
36
Criticisms of agentic state :
- it does not explain why some did not obey
- Mantell found german p/pants had 85% obedience rate in milgram variation - in some cultures authority is more accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience - cross cultural studies increase validity
37
What was Adorno's (1950) procedure :
he investigates the causes of the obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans ad their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups
they created several scales to investigate this, including the F-scale which is still used to measure authoritarian personality
38
Adorno's (1950) findings :
- people with authoritarian leanings identified with 'strong' people which were resentful towards the 'weak'
- they were conscious of status showing respect to those with high status
- they also had a cognitive style where there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people with fixed stereotypes
- strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice
39
Authoritarian characteristics :
- tendency to be obedient to authority
- respect and submissiveness to authority
- dissent people with an 'inferior' social status
- inflexible on their outlook
- believe we need strong and powerful leaders
40
Support for the authoritarian personality :
+ Milgram and Elms (1966)
conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient p/pants who scored highly on F-scale believing there may be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality
41
Criticisms for the authoritarian personality :
- no matter how strong a correlation it does not mean one causes the other - therefore Adorno could not claim a harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personality
- makes it hard to explain obedience in the majority of a population - pre war germany - unlikely they all had a authoritarian personality - limitation because it is clear that an alternative is much more realsitic - that social identity explaubs obedience
42
What can social support do ?
- help people resist conformity
- help people resist obedience - milgrams variations obedience drops to 10% when genuine p/pant is joined by a disobedient confed
43
What does asch state happens when the non-conforming social support starts conforming ?
so does the naive p/pants - thus the effect is not long lasting
44
Support for social support causing resistance to conformity :
+ Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was a dissenter is Aschs variation even if they wore thick glasses
44
Who proposed the LOC ?
Rotter (1966)
44
Support for social support causing resistance to obedience :
+ Gamson (1982) found higher levels of disobedience than Milgram as their p/pants were in groups - 29 out of 33 groups rebelled
44
What do people with an internal LOC believe ?
the things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves
44
Support for Rotters LOC :
+ Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether p/pants were internal or external - found 37% of internals did Not continue to highest shock and 23% of externals did not - showing internals show a greater resistance to authority
44
What do people with an external LOC believe ?
that things happen without their own control
45
Why are people with internal LOC's more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey ?
- tend to be more self-confident, achievement orientated, higher intelligence, less need for social approval
45
Criticism for Rotters LOC :
- Twenge (2004) analysed data from American LOC studied and found people have become more external but they have also become more resistant to authority - if resistance was linked to a more internal loc we would expect for people to be more internal
46
What is minority influence most likely to lead to ?
internalisation
47
Who studied minority influence ?
Moscovici in his 'blue slide, green slide' study
48
What are the main processes/ factors in minority influence ?
- consistency
- commitment
- flexibility
48
What were Moscovici's findings when the minority was inconsistent
agreement fell to 1.25%
48
Moscovici (1969) procedure :
six people asked to view 36 blue slides and state whether they were blue or green - in each group there were 2 confeds who consistently said slides were green on 2 thirds of the trials
48
Moscovici findings for first group of p/pants with consistent minority :
32% gave same answer as the minority on at least one trial
p/pants gave same wrong answer on 8.42 % of trials
49
What were Moscovici's findings when there were no confeds :
- wrong 0.25% of the time
50
Support for minority influence :
+ Wood et al (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential
+ in a variation of Moscovici's procedure p/pants were allowed to write answers down privately - private agreement with minority was greater reluctant to admit minority was changing their views as they didn't want to be associated with a minority in fear of being seen as 'radical' or 'weird'
51
What are the steps of social change/ minority influence :
1) drawing attention
2) consistency
3) deeper processing
4) the augmentation principle
5) the snowball effect
6) social cryptomnesia
52
What is the augmentation principle ?
that taking risk or making sacrifices can increase the influence of a minority group
53
How is social change encouraged ?
by drawing attention to what the majority are doing
54
Lessons from conformity research ?
dissent even from one person can cause social change
55
Lessons from obedience research ?
Zimbardo states gradual obedience can lead to social change - as once a small instruction is obeyed it is more difficult to disobey a larger one - people then drift into a new type of behaviour
56
How do environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity ?
by appealing to NSI
stating 'Bin it - others do' or telling kids most young people do not smoke
57
Support for the process of social change :
+ Nolan et al (2008)
investigated whether SI processes led to a reduction in energy consumotion in a neighbourhood in San Diego - they hung messages stating others were trying to reduce their energy consumption -- as a control some residence were just asked to reduce energy usage with no mention of others --- Nolan found significant decreases of energy usage in first group showing conformity can lead to social change through NSI
58
Criticisms of the process of social change :
- explanations draw heavily on the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram - all of which can be evaluated in terms of their methodological issues
- Bashir (2013) investigated why people so often resist social change, even when they agree that its neccessary -- found that their p/pants were less likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways because they didn't want to be associated with stereotypes of minority groups as they rated them in negative ways
