1 Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Obedience- Situational variables: Strengths

Answer 1

**Research support** * Field experiment, New York- 3 confederates dressed as milkman, jacket + tie or security guard * Individually stood + asked ppl to pick up litter or for a coin for parking meter * Twice as likely to obey security guard than jacket + tie * Supports uniform's effect **Cross- cultural replicates** * Research- asked Dutch pps to say stressful things in a job interview to a person desperate for a job * 90% obeyed but it reduced when orderer wasn't present * Agrees with proximity research * Not limited to American men * ***Counterpoint*** * Research- only 2 replications between 1968-1985 took place in India + Jordan--> culturally different from US * Other countries involved eg, Spain, UK --> culturally similar * Not appropriate to assume variables generalise

Answer 2

**Low Internal Validity** * May have been aware procedure = faked * Researcher criticisms * Even more likely in variations --> extra manipulation of variables * Eg, when experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public' --> Milgram stated it was contrived --> pps may figure it out * Unclear if findings are from true deception or demand charcteristics **Danger of situational perspective** * Findings support situational explanation of obedience * Researcher criticism --> alibi for evil behaviour * Eg, Nazis = not simply following orders * Ignores role of dispositional factors * Suggests Nazis = victims of situational variables, not in their control

Answer 3

**Agentic state** * Act for someone else (an authority figure) --> an agent * Experience moral strain (high anxiety) * But, feel powerless as no personal responsibility **Autonomous state** * Opposite of agentic state * Free to behave according to own principles * Responsibility for own actions **Agentic shift** * Shift from autonomy to agency * Percieves somebody else as an authority figure * Authoruty figure = greater power --> higher position in social hierarchy **Binding factors** * Aspects of the situation that allow a person to ignore the damage of their behaviour * Reduces moral strain * Eg, shifting responsibility onto victim or denying damage caused

Answer 4

**Legitimate authority** * More likely to obey who we percieve to have authority over us * Auhtority is justified by individual's position in social hierarchy * Authority agreed by society * Eg parents, teachers police officers **Consequences of legitimate authority** * Some people are granted power to punish others * Eg, police + lawbreakers * Willing to give up control + independence to ppl we trust to excercise authority apporpriately * Learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood--> parents + teachers + adults **Destructive authority** * Legitimate authority can become destructive --> problems * Use power for destructive purpose --> cruel + dangerous * Eg, Hitler * Eg, Milgram --> experimenter used prods

Answer 5

**Strengths** **Research support** * Milgrams studies support explanation * Most pps resisted shocks at some point * Pps asked qs eg, who is responsible if mr wallace (the learner) is harmed? * When the experimented said they were, they continued w/ shocks + no more objections * pps = no longer responsible --> agent to experimenter **Limitations** **Limited explanation** * Agentic shift doesn't explain all research about obedience * Study --> 16-18 hospital nurses disobeyed doctor order to give excessive dose to a pt * Dr = obvious authority figure * Nurses remained autonomous (as did many of milgram's pps) * agentic shift only accs for some situations **Obedience alibi revisited** * Incident in WII involve police batallion 101 * shot many civillians in poland * no direct orders --> told they could do another duty if preferred * behaved autonomously

Answer 6

**Strengths** **Explains cultural differences** * Studies- Pppl from dif countries differ to degree they obey authority figures * Milgram-like research- 16% of australian women went to 450V vs 85% in another study of Germans * Culture --> how legitimate an authority figure is + how entitled they're to demand obedience * Different societal structure + raising of children **Limitations** **Cannot explain all disobedience** * Cannot explain disobedience in a clear hierarchy w/ a respected legitimate authority * Study --> nurses disobeyed dr order to give excessive medication. Despite clear hierarchy * Milgram --> some disobeyed desite acknowledgement of experimenter's scientific authority * --> some may be more/less obedient than others * Innate tendencies to obey/disobey **Real-world crimes of obedience** * Nurses disobeyed dr order to give excessive medication * real world crimes of obedience eg My Lai massacre --> american soldiers killed unarmed civillians, gang-raped women + burned village to ground * Researcher says this is understood cs of power hierarchy * Commander officers > doctor legitimate authority + greater power to punish.

Answer 7

**High obedience = pathological** * Adorno et al --> unquestioning obedience = psychological disorder * He tried to find its causes in the individual's personality **Extreme resoect for authority + contempt for inferiors** * Adorno et al --> ppl w/ authoritarian personality = especially obedient. They: 1. Have exaggerated respect for authorrity + submissivenss to it 2. Express contempt for ppl of inferior social status * Follow orders + view other groups --> responsible for society's ills **Originates in childhood** * Because of hash parenting --> strict discipline, expectation of absolutely loyalty, impossible high standards + severe criticsm * Unconditional love --> love from parent dependent on behaviour **Hostility us displaced onto social inferiors** * Experiences --> resentment + hostility in child * Cannot express feelings directly --> fear reprisals * Feelings displaced onto weaker others --> **scapegoting** * **Psychodynamic explantion**

Answer 8

**Procedure** * Measured- Unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups of more than 2000 middle class white Americans * Several scales developed, including potential for fascism scale (F-Scale) * Rated 1-6, 6= strongly agree * Example qs: Obedience + respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn * There is hardly anything lowe than a person who ddoes not feel greater love, gratitude + respect for his parents' **Findings** * High score on F-scale = authoritarians * They identified w/ strong people + disliked the weak * conscious of status * excessive respect + deference to those of higher status * Authoritarian people = cognitive style w/ no fuzziness between categories of ppl * fixed + distinctive stereotypes

Answer 9

**Strength** **Evidence that authoritarians are obedient** * Research- Milgram + Elms interviewed 20 fully obedient pps from og studies * Scored much higher on f-sclae compared to 20 disobedient pps * --> obedient ppl may share many characteristics w/ authoritarian personality * ***Counterpoint*** * Subscales of F-scale --> obedient pps has characteristics unusual for authoritarians * Eg, didn't experience high levels of punishment as a child * complex link * authoritarianism is not a useful predictor of obedience **Limitation** **Cannot explain a whole country's behaviour** * millions of German's displayed anti-semetic behaviour * Cannot all have same personality * Unlikely majority of Germany = authoritarian personality * More likely = German's identified w/ Nazi state * Social identity theory = betteer explanation

Answer 10

**Limitations** **F-Scale = politically biased** * Christie + Jahoda --> F-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right wing ideology * Point out Chinese Moaisim * But, left wing + right wing insist on complete obedience to political authority * So, theory = not comprehensive dispositional explanation --> doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism **Flawed evidence** * Positive- research with F-scale provides basis of an explanation of obedience based on authoritarian personality * Research calls F-scale 'a comedy of metholgical errors' * Seriously flawed scale * Eg, a high score = more agree answers * So, anybody with this response bias would score high for authoritarian personality

Answer 11

**Resisting conformity. Dessenting peer** * Pressure to conform = reduced if other ppl are not conforming * Asch research --> dessenter doesn't have to give correct answer * Someone else not following majority, frees others --> acts as a model * Shows majority is not unanimous anymore **Resisting obedience. Obedience is redued by one other dissenting partner** * Pressure to obey reduced if somebody else is seen to disobey * Milgrams research --> obedient behaviour decreased in disobedient peer condition : 65% to 10%

Answer 12

**Inernals vs externals** * Rotter (1966) --> internal vs extertenal LOC * Internals = things happen to them are controlled by themselves * Eg, peformance in exam due to effort * External = things that happen to them are outside their control * Eg, if they fail an exam, it was bad luck, bad teacher, hard test **Continuum** * Scale from high internal to high external * People are at dif points on scale **Internals = greate resistant to Social influence** * People with internal are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey 1. If someone takes personal responsibility for their actions --> more likely to bese desicions on own beliefs 2. High internal LOC --> more confident, more achievement oriented, higher intelligence --> traits lead to greater resistance + traits of leaders w/ less need for social approval

Answer 13

**Strengths** * **Evidence for Social support in resisting conformity** * In programme to help pregnant adolescents to resist pressure to smoke --> social support given w/ buddy * Adolescents less likely to smoke at end of programme vs control (w/out buddy) * Help young ppl resust SI in real-world **Evidence for role of support in dissenting peers** * Gamson et al --> groups asked to give evidence for oil company to use in smear campaign * 29/33 groups (88%) rebelled against orders --> much higher than Milgram's * Supporters can undermine legitimacy of authority + reduce obedience **Social support explanation** * Allen + Levine--> 3% of pps resisted conformity when no supporter present * 64% resisted when dissenter refused to conform * 36% resisted when auppoter = bad eyesight --> couldn't be relied on to judge lines * Explanation = valid * Expect less resistane when pps believed social support = not helpful

Answer 14

**Strengths**: **Evidence for LOC in resisting obedience** * Holland repeated Milgram's study --> measured if pps were internals or externals * Internals = 37% did not cont to highest shock --> showed greater resistance * Externals = 23% did not cont to highest shock * Resistance partly related to LOC * Increasing validity of this explanation of disobedience **Limitations:** **Not all research support LOC in resistance** * Twenge et al --> analysed data from American locus of control studies over 40 years * Showed ppl have become more independent but also more external * Surprising --> if resistance = linked to internal LOC --> ppl woul've come more internal * reduced validity **Limited role of LOC** * Lots of studies --> internal LOC --> linked to resistance of SI * But, Rotter --> LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations, in familiar situations --> previous responses = more important * Validity of LOC = limited --> only predict resistance in some situations

Answer 15

**Minority influence** * Refers to how 1 person/small group influences beliefs + behaviour of others * Minority may influence 1 person or the majority * Differs from conformity (where majority does influencing) * Conformity = majority influence **Internalisation** * Minority influence leads to internalisation- both public + private beliefs change * Three processes: consistency, commitment, flexibility **Explaining process of minority influence** * Deeper processing- individuals think deeply ab minority position as it is new/ unfamiliar * Snowball effect- over time, more people = converted, there is a switch from the minority to the majority * The more this occurs, the faster the rater of conversion * when minority becomes majority, social change has occured.

Answer 16

**Consistency** * always doing same thing * means minority's view gains more interest * makes others rethink own views * **Synchronic** consistency- people in minority all saying same thing * **Diachronic** consistency- they've been saying same thing for some time **Commitment** * Shows deep involvement * Helps gain attention * Activities must create some risk to minority --> demonstrate commitmment * Eg, gluing self to road **Flexibility** * Showing willingness to listen to others * balance consistency + flexibility --> don't appear rigid * Nmeth --> being consistent + repeating same arguments/behaviours = rigid + off-putting to majority * Adapt pov + accept reasonable counterarguments

Answer 17

**Research supporting consistency** * Moscovici et al --> found consistent minority opinion --> greater effect on other ppl vs inconsistent op * Wood et al --> meta analyis of almost 100 similar studies --> minorities thought to be consistent = mose influential * confirms consistence as a factor **Research showing role of deeper processing** * Martin et al --> gave pps a message supporting particular viewpoint + measured attitudes * Then they heard an endorsement of view fro either a minority or a majority * Then they heard conflicting view * Then attitudes re measured * Pps = less willing to change opinions * to the new conflicting view if listened to minority group than a majority group * Suggests minority message = more deeply processed = more enduring effect * ***Counterpoint*** * Research studies --> minority/majority group clearly distinguished in terms of numbers --> increases validity * But in real world, more to groups than just numbers * Eg, majorities = power + status, but minorities = commitmment * Features absent from research--> simply group size * Martin et al research = limited **Power of minority influence** * Mosocivici et al study --> minority = 8% --> minority influence must be quite rare * Rare --> not very useful * But, if pps could wrtie down answers, more pps agreed with minority * So those who do 'go public' = 'tip of iceberg' + hold new views strongly --> internalisation * So minority influence is valid * unusual form of si but can powefully + permenantly change views

Answer 18

**Research involves artificial tasks** * Moscovici et al --> task = identifying colour of slide * Far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in real world * In jure-desicion making + political campaigning, outcomes = more important + matter of life vs death * lack external validity + are limited in what they tell us ab real world situations

Answer 19

1. **Drawing attention**- Segregation in 1950s America, schools + restaurants in Southern states --> whites only. Civil rights marches = draw attention --> social proof of problem 2. **Consistency**- Ppl took part of marches on large scale, despite it being minority of American pop. Consistent message + intent 3. **Deeper processing**- Ppl had accepted status quo began deeply thinking ab unjustness 4. **Augumentation principle**- extreme activities or risks to further their cause Many = beaten, personal risk strengthend message 5. **Snowball effect**- Civil rights activists gradually got attention of government --> Civil rights Act 6. **Social cryptomnesia**- Social change came but ppl have no memory in events leading to it

Answer 20

**Dissenters make social change more likely** * Asch's research--> 1 confederate always gave correct answers * --> broke power of majority --> encouraged others to dissent * --> potential for social change **NSI** * Environmental + health campaigns exploit conformity by appealing to NSI * Provide info about what others are doing * Eg, reducing litter by printing normative messages on bins * Eg, Bin it- others do

Answer 21

**Disobedient models make change more likely** * Milgram's research --> disobedient models in varuation where confederate refused shocks * Rate of obedience of genuine pps plummeted **Gradual commitment leads to drift** * Zimbardo --> once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes more difficult to resist a bigger one * People drift into a new kind of behaviour

Answer 22

**Support for NSI in social change** * Nolan et al --> hung messages on front doors of houses * Key message= most residents are trying to reduce energy usage * Significant decrease in energu usage vs control group (saw messages to reduce energy usage w/out others mentioned) * Conformity can lead to social change through NSI * ***Counterpoint*** * Exposint ppl to social norms doesn't always change their behaviour * Foxcroft et al--> reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce alcohol intake * Only had small effect on drinking quantity + no effect on frequency * NSI doesn't always produce long-term social change **Minority influence explains social change** * Nemeth --> minority arguments cause ppl to engage in divergent thinking * Divergent thinking = broad rather than narrow + thinker actively searchers for info + weighs up more options * --> leads to better desicions + creative solutions to social problems * Minorities are valuable as they stimulate new ideas + open people's minds

Answer 23

**Majority influence may cause deeper processing** * Mackie disagrees w/ minority influence causing ppl to think deeply * We want+ think majority agrees + think as we do --> when they do not --> pressure to think about theirs view + re evaluate our POV * Central argument of minority influence = challenged * doubts validity **Barriers to social change** * People resist social change * Bashir et al --> ppl less likely to act environmentally friendly as they do not want association of environmentalists * based on sterotypes * described them in negative ways --> tree huggers * researchers --> suggest ways to overcome barriers * barriers hard to overcome --> less useful si

1 Social Influence Flashcards

(47 cards)