Social Influence Flashcards

Question 1

Q

Conformity- Asch’s Research

What is conformity?
What was the aim of Asch’s study (1951)
Describe baseline procedure of Asch (1951)
Describe the baseline findings of Asch (1951)

Answer

A

Conformity is a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
Asch (1951), procedure to assess extent people conform to opinions of others, even in situation where answer is certain (unambiguous)
Procedure, 123 male ppts, two cards, line x on left card, match with line a b c on right card, one clearly same length as x, ppt in groups of 6 to 8 (rest confederates), ppt always last to speak aloud their answer (6th or 7th)
Findings, 36.8% conformed to incorrect answer at least once, 25% never gave the wrong answer (individual differences)
Above demonstrates baseline study that later studies are compared to

Question 2

Q

Variables Investigated by Asch

T|U|G
What variables were investigated by Asch
Why did he study these variables?

Answer

A

Asch extended baseline study to investigate variables that might increase or decrease conformity
3 variables, Task Difficulty, Unanimity and Group size

Question 3

Q

Group Size

Describe the alternate procedure
Describe findings, what does this suggest?

Answer

A

Test if size of group more important than agreement, varied number of confederates (1 to 15)
Found conformity increased with group size to a certain point
31.8% increase of conformity at 3 confederates, not much difference after
Suggests people are very sensitive to views of others, 1 or 2 confederates enough to sway opinion (NSI)

Question 4

Q

Unanimity

Describe the alternate procedure
Describe findings, what does this suggest?

Answer

A

Test if presence of non-conforming person affects conformity (dissenter)
Introduced one person who disagreed with majority, conformity decreased
Dissenter did not even need to agree with ppt
Suggests influence of majority dependent on extent of unanimity
Non-conformity more likely when cracks (people disagreeing) perceived in majority’s unanimous view (ISI)

Question 5

Q

Task Difficulty

Describe the alternate procedure
Describe findings, what does this suggest?

Answer

A

Test degree of conformity when task was harder
Made stimulus line (x) more similar to lines a b and c (more ambiguous)
Conformity increased, unclear to ppt what right answer is, naturally looks to others (ISI)
Suggests increasing task difficulty, increases ambiguity therefore causing ISI resulting in more conformity

Question 6

Q

Evaluation of Asch’s research (A|L|I|A)

Answer

A

Artificial situation and task
Limited application
Research Support (Lucas et al 2006)
Counterpoint (Individual Factors)

Question 7

Q

Artificial situation and task

Answer

A

Limitation, situation and task were artificial
Ppts knew they were in research study, could have gone along with it (demand characteristics)
Identifying lines trivial, no real reason not to conform
Suggests findings do not generalise to real world situations

Question 8

Q

Limited application

Answer

A

Limitation, ppts American men only (Androcentric)
Other research suggest women may be more conformist
US individualist, collectivist cultures conformity rates higher
Suggests Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and some cultures
Therefore, it is incomplete, low external validity and generalisation
Beta bias, ignores differences between men and women
Assumes conformity is the same for men and women

Question 9

Q

Research Support (Lucas et al 2006)

Answer

A

Strength, support for effect of task difficulty
Lucas et al (2006), maths problems, ppt conformed when problems harder
Demonstrates Asch was correct, task difficulty variable that affects conformity

Question 10

Q

Counterpoint (Individual Factors)

Answer

A

Lucas et al’s study found conformity more complex than Asch suggested
Ppt higher confidence in math ability, conform less
Shows individual level factor can influence conformity, Asch did not study individual factors
Therefore, Asch’s research is incomplete, low external validity and generalisation

Question 11

Q

Types of Conformity

I|C|I
What are the 3 types of conformity

Answer

A

Kelman (1958), 3 ways people conform to opinion of majority
Internalisation, Compliance and Identification

Question 12

Q

Internalisation

What is this, why does this make us conform?
What happens to private and public opinions and behaviours?
Does change continue in absence of group members?
Give an example

Answer

A

Person genuinely accepts group norms
Privately and publicly changing opinion/behv, change usually permanent
Due to views becoming internalised (part of the way person thinks)
Change persists even in absence of other group members
Example, Person learns about veganism from group, becomes vegan

Question 13

Q

Compliance

What is this, why does this make us conform?
What happens to private and public opinions and behaviours?
Does change continue in absence of group members?
Give an example

Answer

A

Going along with others in public, privately not changing person opinion/behv
Particular behv/opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops
Example, helping a friend who asked you for a favour

Question 14

Q

Identification

What is this, why does this make us conform?
What happens to private and public opinions and behaviours?
Does change continue in absence of group members?
Give an example

Answer

A

Conform to opinions/behv of group, something about group that we value
Identify with group, want to be apart of it, publicly change opinion/behv to be accepted by group
Don’t privately agree with everything group stands for
Example, Group of friends like game, you say you like game in public, game is mid

Question 15

Q

Explanations of Conformity

What is the two-process model?
What are the two main reasons people conform?

Answer

A

Deutsch and Gerard (1955) developed two process theory
Two main reasons people conform based on two central human needs
Need to be liked (NSI) and the need to be right (ISI)

Question 16

Q

Informational Social Influence

What do people tend to think?
What type of process is this?
What does it lead to?
When is it likely to occur?

Answer

A

Who has better information, you or rest of the group, it is a cognitive process
Follow behv of group because we want to be right (example, maths question)
Leads to permeant change of opinion/behv (internalisation)
More likely to occur when uncertain, new experiences, some ambiguity, quick decision making

Question 17

Q

Normative Social Influence

What do people tend to think?
What type of process is this?
What does it lead to?
When is it likely to occur?

Answer

A

About norms, what is “normal” or typical behv for social group
People want to gain social approval and avoid rejection (desire to be liked), emotional process
Leads to temporary change in opinions/behv (compliance)
Likely to occur when we are cautious of rejection, from friends or strangers
Could be more pronounce in stressful situations, greater need for social support

Question 18

Q

Evaluation for explanations of conformity

U|L|I|A

Answer

A

Research support for NSI (Asch 1951)
Research support for ISI (Lucas et al 2006)
Counterpoint (Unclear NSI or ISI)
Individual differences in NSI (McGhee and Teevan 1967)

Question 19

Q

Research support for NSI (Asch 1951)

Answer

A

Strength, evidence for NSI
Asch (1951), interviewed ppts, conformed because “self-conscious about giving right answer, afraid of disapproval”
When ppts wrote answers, conformity fell by 12.5%, private, no normative group pressure
Shows some conformity due to fear of rejection

Question 20

Q

Research support for ISI (Lucas et al 2006)

Answer

A

Strength, evidence for ISI
Lucas et al (2006), conformed more when harder maths questions given (more ambiguous)
Unclear what answer was, ppts not want to be wrong, relied on answers of others
Shows ISI valid explanation of conformity

Question 21

Q

Counterpoint (Unclear NSI or ISI)

Answer

A

Unclear whether NSI or ISI at work in research studies or real life
Asch (1951), conformity reduced when dissenter introduced
Could be because it reduces NSI (they provide social support)
Could be power of ISI (they are an alternate source of info)
Hard to separate, both processes probably operate together in real world conformity situations

Question 22

Q

Individual differences in NSI (McGhee and Teevan 1967)

Answer

A

Limitation, NSI not predict conformity in every case
Some people greatly concerned about being liked by others
These are called nAffiliators, have strong need for “affiliation” (relate to other people)
McGhee and Teevan (1967), students who are nAffiliators more likely to conform
Shows NSI underlies conformity for some more than others, individual differences cannot be explained by one general theory of situational pressures

Question 23

Q

Conformity to social roles

What are social roles?
Give examples

Answer

A

Social roles are “parts” people play as members of various social groups
Parents, child, student, passenger etc
Accompanied by expectations we and others have of appropriate behv in each role (Caring, obedient etc)

Question 24

Q

Zimbardo’s research- Procedure

Describe the procedure in detail

Answer

A

Zimbardo wanted to know why guards behaved brutally, personality or social role
Zimbardo et al (1973), mock prison, basement of Stanford university
21 student volunteers (men only), “emotionally stable”, randomly assigned to prisoner or guard
Given uniform and instructions about behv, encourage conforming to social roles
Uniforms, cap and smock for prisoners (referred to with numbers)
Guards uniform reflected status, wooden club, handcuffs and mirror shades also given
Creates loss of personal identity (de-individuation), more likely to conform to social roles
Rather than leaving study early, ppt encouraged to “apply for parole”
Guards reminded they had complete power over prisoners

Question 25

Q

Zimbardo’s research- Findings

Describe the findings in detail

Answer

A

Guards treated prisoners harshly, 2 days in prisoners rebelled
Ripped uniforms, shouted and swore at guards
Prisoners harassed, reminded about powerlessness
Opportunities created by guards to enforce rules, administer punishment
Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
One ppt released, shows symptoms of psych disturbance
Other went on hunger strike, guards force-fed him, sent him to “the hole” (tiny dark closet)
Guards became increasingly brutal and aggressive, identified with their role
Zimbardo ended study after 6 days instead of intended 14

Question 26

Q

Zimbardo’s research- Conclusions

Describe the conclusions in detail

Answer

A

Social roles have strong influence on individuals’ behaviour
Guards became brutal and prisoners became submissive
Roles very easily take on by all, including researchers
Volunteers from outside who visited said they felt it was like a real prison not a psych study

Question 27

Q

Obedience

What is obedience?

Answer

A

Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order, person giving order usually a authority figure who has the power to punish when obedient behv not carried out.

Question 28

Q

Milgram’s research- Baseline Procedure

Describe the procedure in detail

Answer

A

Used to assess obedience levels, adapted later by Milgram in variations
40 American men (volunteered), take part study of “memory”
In small groups drew lots, Teacher (Always ppt, fixed), Learner (Confederate), Experiment (Confederate in grey lab coat)
Assess obedience in situation where authority figure (E) ordered ppt (T) to give shocks to learner in different room when they got question wrong (shocks increase from 15 to 450 Volts)
Prods given, “Please continue”, “Experiment requires you to continue”, “Essential to continue”, “No choice continue”
Not real shocks, Teacher (Ppt) not aware of this

Question 29

Q

Milgram’s research- Baseline Findings

Describe the findings in detail

Answer

A

Every ppt went up to 300 volts, 12.5% (5 ppt) stopped at 300, 65% continue to max 450 volts
Qualitative data collected including observations (signs of tension, sweat, stutter, bite lips etc)
Three ppt had uncontrollable seizures

Question 30

Q

Milgram’s research- Conclusions and Other data

Describe the conclusions in detail
What other data was used?

Answer

A

People willing to obey orders even when they may harm another person
Suspected other factors encouraged obedience, decided to further investigate with further studies
14 psych students attempted to predict ppt behv, said no more than 3% would go 450 volts
Findings unexpected, underestimated how obedient people are
All ppts debriefed, assured their behv was normal
Follow up questionnaire, 84% glad they participated

Question 31

Q

Evaluation for Milgram’s Research

S|A|P|I|E

Answer

A

Research support (Beauvios et al 2012)
Artificial (Orne and Holland 1968, Perry 2013)
Counterpoint (Sheridan and King 1972)
Alternative interpretation of findings
Ethical Issues

Question 32

Q

Research support (Beauvios et al 2012)

Answer

A

Strength, replicated in French documentary (Beauvios et al 2012)
Ppts paid to give shocks (fake, ordered by presenter) to other ppts (hired actors) in front of studio audience
80% ppts delivered max shock (460 volts) to apparently “unconscious” man, almost identical to Milgram’s ppts (nervous laughter, nail biting, other signs of anxiety)
Demonstrates Milgram’s findings were not just due to special circumstances, good replicability can be falsified

Question 33

Q

Artificial (Orne and Holland 1968, Perry 2013)

Answer

A

Limitation, may not be testing what he intended to test
75% ppts believed shocks were genuine, Orne and Holland (1968) argued ppts did not believe it was real “play acted”
Perry (2013) confirms this, listened to tapes of M study, 2/3 ppts seemed disobedient
Suggests demand characteristics may have occurred, ppts aimed to fufill aims of study
Low internal validity, cannot generalise to real world

Question 34

Q

Counterpoint (Sheridan and King 1972)

Answer

A

Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using procedure like Milgram’s
Ppts (students) gave real shocks to puppies in response to orders from experimenter
54% men, 100% women gave what they thought was a fatal shock
Suggests effects in M study genuine, behv obedient even when shocks were real

Question 35

Q

Alternative interpretation of findings

Answer

A

Limitation, blind obedience may not be justified
Haslam et al (2014), M ppts obeyed when experimenter delivered 3 verbal prods
Every ppt disobeyed 4th prod (No choice), according to social identity theory
Ppt only obeyed when they identified with aims of research, when ordered blindly by authority they refused
Shows SIT may be more valid interpretation of M research

Question 36

Q

Ethical Issues

Answer

A

Milgram deceived ppts, seemed shocks were real, shocks not real
He did debrief but deception was unjustified
Deception made ppt vulnerable to psych harm
Benefits do not outweigh the costs, rep of psych could be damaged
Less people willing to be ppts, representative samples more difficult to obtain

Question 37

Q

Situational Variables

What are the three situational variables?

Answer

A

There are three situational variables that Milgram studied in variations of his base study
Proximity, Uniform and Location

Question 38

Q

Proximity

Describe the variations in detail
Explain how this effects obedience

Answer

A

Teacher Learner in same room, obedience went from 65% to 40%
Touch proximity variation, teacher force hand of learner onto electroshock plate if they refused to do it themselves after wrong answer, obedience 30%
Remote instruction variation, Experimenter left room, telephone instructions 20.5% obedience
Participants frequently pretended to give shocks in this variation
Decreased proximity, psychologically distance themselves from consequences of their actions
Less aware of harm they are causing, more obedient

Question 39

Q

Uniform

Describe the variations in detail
Explain how this effects obedience

Answer

A

Experimenter wore grey lab coat in base study (uniform)
Experimenter called away replace with confederate in ordinary clothing
Obedience dropped to 20%, lowest of all variations
Uniforms encourage obedience, symbols of authority
Accept someone in uniform entitled to expect obedience, authority is legitimate (granted by society)
Without uniform, less right to expect obedience

Question 40

Q

Location

Describe the variations in detail
Explain how this effects obedience

Answer

A

Variation in run down office block rather than prestigious university setting of base study
Obedience fell to 47.5%, uni gave study legitimacy and authority
Ppts more obedient, perceived experimenter shared legitimacy of location, assumed obedience was expected
Obedience still high, “scientific” nature of the procedure

Question 41

Q

Evaluation for Situational Variables

A|B|C|C|D

Answer

A

Research Support (Bickman 1974)
Cross-cultural replications (Mees and Raaijmakers 1986)
Counterpoint (Smith and Bond 1998)
Artificial (Orne and Holland 1968)
Research very simplified (Mandel 1998)

Question 42

Q

Research Support (Bickman 1974)

Answer

A

Strength, influence of situational variables on obedience
Field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974), 3 confederates’ different outfits (Suit and tie, milkman, security guard)
Asked passers-by to perform tasks, picking up litter, handing coin for parking meter
People twice as likely to obey “security guard” than one dressed in suit and tie
Supports view that situational variables such as uniform have a powerful effect on obedience

Question 43

Q

Cross-cultural replications (Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986)

Answer

A

Strength, M findings replicated in other cultures
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986), more realistic procedure in Dutch ppts
Ppts say stressful things in interview to someone (confederate) desperate for a job, 90% ppts obeyed
Also replicated M findings concerning proximity, person giving orders not present, obedience decreased drastically
Suggests M findings not just limited to Americans or men, valid across cultures can apply to women

Question 44

Q

Counterpoint (Smith and Bond 1998)

Answer

A

M replications not very cross cultural, Smith and Bond (1998) identified only two replications that took place in India and Jordan (Culturally different to US)
Other countries involved (Spain, Australia Scotland) culturally similar to US (same notions about role of authority)
Suggests may not be appropriate to conclude M findings apply to people in all or most cultures

Question 45

Q

Artificial (Orne and Holland 1968)

Answer

A

Limitation, ppts may be aware procedure “faked”, Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism with M’s base study, claim even more likely in variations
Experimenter replaced by member of public, even M recognised situation bait, likely some ppts worked out the truth
Therefore, unclear in all M’s studies if findings are genuinely due to operation of obedience due to the fact that some ppt saw through the deception and “play acted” (Response to Demand Characteristics)

Question 46

Q

Research very simplified (Mandel 1998)

Answer

A

Mandel (1998) argued perspective of M provides excuse for destructive obedience
People can excuse their antisocial behaviour because it is not their fault
Overlooks dispositional factors such as personality characteristics
Some may be more obedient due to genetics or up bringing, just as important to determine whether people obey authority
Suggests M explanation that’s solely on situational factors is oversimplified

Question 47

Q

Situational Explanations of Obedience

What are the two situational explanations for obedience?

Answer

A

The two situational explanations for obedience is agentic state and legitimacy of authority.

Question 48

Q

Agentic State

What is agentic state?
What did Milgram propose
What is an “agent”?

Answer

A

This is a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for behv, acting for authority figure, frees us from demands of our conscience, allows us to obey even destructive authority figures
Milgram’s initial interest in obedience sparked from Eichmann in 1961
In charge of Nazi death camps, defence was he was only obeying orders
Milgram proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs when person takes no responsibility for their actions or behaviours
Believe they are acting for someone else; individual is an “agent” (acts in place of another)
Not unfeeling puppet, high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise what they are doing is wrong, feel powerless to disobey

Question 49

Q

Autonomous State

What is autonomous state?
What is an agentic shift?
What did Milgram suggest caused an agentic shift?

Answer

A

Opposite of agentic state, person feels free to behave on their own accord/principles
Take responsibility for their own actions, shift from autonomous to “agency” known as agentic shift
Milgram (1974), suggested agentic state occurs when person identifies other person as an authority figure
Greater power, higher position in social hierarchy, feel the need to obey

Question 50

Q

Binding Factors

What are binding factors, what do they cause?
Give examples

Answer

A

Reason why people remain in agentic state, aspects of situation that allow person to ignore/minimise damaging effects of their behaviour/actions (reduces moral strain they are feeling)
Strategies such as shifting responsibility to victim or denying damage they were doing to victims are used by individuals (“He was foolish to volunteer”)

Question 51

Q

Legitimacy of authority

What is legitimacy of authority
How is an authority legitimatised?
What is the consequences of legitimacy of authority?
What power does an authority figure have?
Give examples of who has this sort of power
When do we learn to accept legitimate authority?

Answer

A

Suggests more likely to obey person we perceive as authority figure, authority justified (legitimate) by individuals’ position of power in social hierarchy
Societies structured in hierarchal way; parents’ teacher police officers have authority over us sometimes
Authority legitimate when it is agreed upon by a society
Most accept authority figures allowed to exercise social power over us, allows society to function smoothly
Consequences of legitimacy of authority, some people granted power to punish
Police and court have power to punish, we agree to give up some of our independence, hand control of our behv to them to exercise authority appropriately
Acceptance of legitimate authority learnt in childhood, from parents, teachers etc

Question 52

Q

Destructive authority

What does a destructive authority do?

Answer

A

Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive (Hitler, Stalin)
Order people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous

Question 53

Q

Evaluation of Agentic state

M|L|S

Answer

A

Research support (Milgram 1974)
Limited explanation (Rank and Jacobson 1977)
Simplified explanation (Mandel 1998)

Question 54

Q

Research support (Milgram 1974)

Answer

A

Strength, M has support from own studies for role of agentic state in obedience
M ppts asked experimenter “Who is responsible if learner harmed?”, E replied “I am responsible”
Ppts often went through procedure quickly, no further objections when told this
Suggests ppts perceived they were no longer responsible for behv, acted more easily as E’s ”agent”

Question 55

Q

Limited explanation (Rank and Jacobson 1977)

Answer

A

Limitation, agentic shift does not explain all research findings
Rank and Jacobson (1977), 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patients (Doctor was authority figure), almost all nurses remained autonomous (Same with M’s ppts)
Suggests agentic shift only accounts for some situations of obedience

Question 56

Q

Simplified explanation (Mandel 1998)

Answer

A

Mandel (1998), described how German Reserve Police Battalion 101 murdered civilians without direct orders to do so, given a choice so acted autonomously
Reasons for doing so, hatred, prejudice, racism etc, different picture to oversimplified one presented by M
M suggests single factor result of destructive behv, acting as agent of destructive authority
Suggests agentic shift not required for destructive behaviour, other factors may be responsible (dispositional for example)

Question 57

Q

Evaluation for Legitimacy of authority

C|D|M

Answer

A

Explains Cultural differences (Kilham and Mann 1974, Mantel 1971)
Cannot explain disobedience (Rank and Jacobson 1977, Milgram 1974)
My Lai massacre

Question 58

Q

Explains Cultural differences (Kilham and Mann 1974, Mantel 1971)

Answer

A

Strength, useful account of cultural differences in obedience
Studies show countries differ in degree people obey authority
Kilham and Mann (1974), only 16% Australian women went 450 in M style study
Mantel (1971), German ppts 85% went 450, very different compared to Australians
Shows in some cultures, authority more likely to be accepted as legitimate, entitled to demand obedience from individuals
Reflects ways different societies structured, how children raised to perceive authority figures

Question 59

Q

Cannot explain disobedience (Rank and Jacobson 1977, Milgram 1974)

Answer

A

Limitation, cannot explain disobedience when legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
Rank and Jacobson, nurses disobeyed doctors, M’s study, significant minority disobeyed experimenter
Suggests some people more/less obedient than others
Possible that innate tendencies to obey, disobey have greater influence on behv than legitimacy of authority figure

Question 60

Q

My Lai massacre

Answer

A

M’s findings can explain My Lai massacre (1968) during Vietnam War
504 unarmed civilians, killed (including animals), raped, village burned to the ground by American soldiers
Only Lieutenant William Calley faced charges, claimed he was “only doing his duty” by following orders
Supports idea that respect for legitimate authority can lead to blind and destructive obedience

Question 61

Q

Dispositional Explanation of Obedience

What is the dispositional explanation of obedience?
What is a dispositional explanation?

Answer

A

The dispositional explanation of Obedience is the authoritarian personality
A dispositional explanation is any explanation of behv that highlights importance of the individuals personality (their disposition)

Question 62

Q

The Authoritarian Personality

What is the authoritarian personality
What characteristics do people with AP have according to Adorno?
How do they view society and others around them?

Answer

A

Type of personality that makes people susceptible to obeying people in authority, submissive to those of higher status, dismissive of inferiors
Adorno wanted to understand anti-semitism (prejudice against Jews) of the Holocaust
He believed, high level of obedience was a psych disorder, in personality of the individual
Adorno et al argued people with AP first show extreme respect (submissiveness) to authority
View society as weaker than before, need strong powerful leaders to enforce traditional values (love for country and family), characteristics make them more likely to obey orders of authority
Contempt to those of inferior social status, have black and white thinking, no grey areas (something is either right or wrong), very uncomfortable with uncertainty
Believe “others” are responsible for ills of society

Question 63

Q

Adorno et al’s research (1950)- Procedure

Describe the procedure of Adorno et al (1950)

Answer

A

2000 middle-class white Americans, studied their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
Scales developed by researchers such as the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale), used to measure AP
People would do the F-scale (Questionnaire), results displayed in next flashcard
Examples item on F-scale “Obedience respect for authority most important virtues for children to learn”, “Hardly anything lower than person who does not have love and gratitude for parents”

Question 64

Q

Adorno et al’s research (1950)- Findings

Describe the findings of Adorno et al (1950)

Answer

A

People who scored high on F-scale identified with “strong” people, contemptuous of “weak”
Conscious of status (own and others), showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status
Had certain cognitive style (how they perceive others), black and white thinking
Had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
Found strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Answer 65

A

Adorno believed AP formed in childhood due to harsh parenting
Extremely strict discipline, expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibility high standards, severe criticism of perceived failings
Conditional love, “I will love you if”, these experiences create resentment and hostility in child
Cannot direct this towards parents, fear punishment
Displaced to others they perceive as “weaker”, process known as scapegoating
Explains hatred to people considered to be “socially inferior”, why they so blindly follow authority (due to fear of punishment), this is a psychodynamic explanation

Answer 66

A

Research support (Elms and Milgram 1966)
Counterpoint (Unusual characteristics found)
Limited explanation
Political Bias (Christie and Jahoda 1954)
Flawed evidence

Answer 67

A

Strength, M supports AP
M and E, interviewed 20 obedient ppts from original studies
Completed F-scale, found significantly higher overall F-scale in comparison to control group of 20 disobedient ppts
Supports Adorno’s views, obedient people may show similar characteristics to those who have AP

Answer 68

A

Found ppts who scored high on F-scale had unusual characteristics for authoritarians
M’s obedient ppts generally did not glorify fathers, or experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood, no hostile attitudes towards mothers
Suggests link between obedience and authoritarianism complex, obedient ppts were unlike authoritarians, could be other factors

Answer 69

A

Limitation, cannot explain obedience of majority of country’s population
Germany, millions displayed obedience and antisemitic behaviour, most likely differed in personalities due to scale (not very likely they were all AP)
Alternative view, majority Germans identified with antisemitic Nazi state, scapegoated the Jews (social identity theory approach)
Adorno’s theory limited; alternative explanation is a lot more realistic

Answer 70

A

Limitation, F-scale only measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued F-scale politically biased interpretation of AP
Left wing authoritarianism is also a thing (Russian Bolshevism, Chinese Maoism)
Shows Adorno’s theory not comprehensive dispositional explanation, does not account for authority across whole political spectrum (ignores left wing)

Answer 71

A

F-scale suffers from limitations, response bias
Individual can get high score just by agreeing with every item
Not thought properly about answers, does not mean they are AP
Studies therefore may not be studying AP accurately or even at all
Concept of AP may not be valid if method of measuring is so flawed

Answer 72

A

This is the ability of people to withstand social pressure to conform or to obey an authority
This is influence by situational and dispositional factors (Social support and LOC)

Answer 73

A

Presence of people who resist pressure to conform help others do the same, acts as models to show others resistance to social influence is possible

Answer 74

A

Possible if other people present are not conforming
Asch’s research, confederate not conforming by not giving “right” answer
Fact someone else not following majority is social supports, enable naïve ppt to be free to follow own conscience
Confederate is the “model” of independent behaviour, their dissent causes more dissent
Shows majority is no longer unanimous

Answer 75

A

Possible if another person is seen disobeying
Milgram’s Variations, rate of obedience went from 65% to 10% when disobedient confederate joined ppt
Confederate’s disobedience acts as “model” of dissent for ppt to copy, free to act from own conscious
Disobedient “model” challenges legitimacy of authority figure, makes it easier for others to disobey

Answer 76

A

Real-world research support (Albrecht et al 2006)
Research support for dissenting peers (Gamson et al 1982)
Social support explanation (Allen and Levine)

Answer 77

A

Strength, positive effects of social support
Albrecht et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, programme help pregnant teens (aged 14-19) to resist peer pressure to smoke
Social support provided with “buddies” (slightly older mentor)
People with buddy significantly less likely to smoke than control group that had no buddy
Shows social support can help young people resist social influence in the real world

Answer 78

A

A and L found 64% ppts refused to conform in Asch-type task when one other person dissented, 3% resisted with no supporter
Number of people prepared to resist dropped to 36% when supporter someone with bad eyesight
Ppts may have concluded support from this person has low usefulness (could not see lines properly)
Shows social support is a valid explanation of resistance, levels of resistance high when support is reliable but drops when people believe support of dissenter is not helpful due to it not being reliable

Answer 79

A

Strength, evidence to support role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
Gamson et al (1982), ppts told produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign (Discredit public figure with false accusations)
Researchers found high levels of resistance, may be due to ppts being in groups, could discuss what they were told to do, 29 out of 33 groups of ppts (88%) rebelled against orders given
Shows peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining legitimacy of authority figure

Answer 80

A

Sense about what directs events in our lives, internals believe they are responsible for what happens in lives, externals believe it’s a matter of luck, outside forces
Rotter (1966) proposed LOC, concept concerned with internal control versus external control
Internal LOC, everything that happens controlled by themselves (“I did well because I worked hard”)
External LOC, everything that happens controlled by outside forces (“I did well because I’m lucky”)
People whore are internal LOC known as internals; external LOC known as externals

Answer 81

A

Not just Internal or External, scale, individuals vary in position on scale
High Internal one end, High External on other end, Low Internal External in-between

Answer 82

A

People with High Internal LOC more able to resist pressured to conform or obey
Base decisions on own beliefs, not dependent on others’ opinions
More self-confident, more achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence
Traits lead to greater resistance to social influence
Characteristics of leaders, have less need for social approval compared to followers

Answer 83

A

Research support (Holland 1967)
Contradictory research (Twenge et al 2004)
Limited role of LOC

Answer 84

A

Strength, evidence support link between LOC and resistance to obedience
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram baseline study, measure if ppts internals or externals
37% internals not continue to highest shock level, 23% externals did not continue
Internals had greater resistance to authority
Shows resistance at least partly related to LOC, increases validity of LOC as explanation of disobedience

Answer 85

A

Limitation, evidence challenges link between LOC and resistance
Twenge et al (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40-year period
Data showed over time people become more resistant to obedience, also more external
Surprising, would expect people to have become more internal if they resist obedience more
Suggests LOC not valid explanation of how people resist Social Influence

Answer 86

A

Rotter claims link between LOC and resistance to social influence only exists in new situations
LOC irrelevant in situations familiar to individual, does not really affect our behv
Previous responses more influence than LOC in such situations
Example, refused to conform with friends in past, continue to do so in that specific situation even if you have high external LOC (“Do you believe in this”, “No”, “Ask same thing later”, “Still No”)
LOC valid explanation because it is linked to resistance
Validity is limited, does not predict resistance in new social situations

Answer 87

A

This is a form of social influence where the minority of people (1 or small group) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours, leads to internalisation or conversion.

Answer 88

A

6 people, 36 coloured slides varied in intensity, say if slide blue or green
2 confederates per group, consistently said slides were green, true ppts gave same wrong answer 8.42% of trials
Second group, inconsistent minority (green 24 times, blue 12 times), true ppts gave same wrong answer 1.25% of trials
Third group, no confederates all ppts, only wrong 0.25% of trials
Draws attention to 3 main processes in minority influence

Answer 89

A

Minority must be consistent in their views over time
Consistency increases interest from other people overtime
Synchronic consistency, all saying same thing
Diachronic consistency, all saying same thing for some time now
Consistency makes other people rethink their own views
“Maybe they got a point if they all think the same way / keep saying it”

Answer 90

A

Engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views
Important this has some risk to minority (self-sacrifice), shows greater commitment / dedication
Shows minority not acting out of self interest
Causes majority to pay more attention “Must really believe in what there saying”
The Augmentation principle is when the majority value the importance of the minorities cause due to them taking personal risks for it

Answer 91

A

Relentless consistency can be counter-productive and off-putting if seen as unbending and unreasonable by majority (Nemeth 1986)
May be seen as rigid and dogmatic if minority repeats the same old arguments and behaviours
Minority must be prepared to adapt their point of view, accept reasonable and valid counterarguments
Must have a balance between consistency and flexibility
Example- If able to cycle, disabled people can drive

Answer 92

A

Deeper processing important in process of conversion to the minority influence viewpoint
Increasing numbers of people from majority position switch to minority position (They have become “converted”)
More this occurs, faster rate of conversion, this is the snowball effect
Gradually minority view becomes the majority view resulting in a change to occur

Answer 93

A

Research support for consistency (Moscovici et al 1969, Wood et al 1994)
Research support for deeper processing (Martin et al 2003)
Counterpoint (Martin et al 2003)
Artificial Tasks (Moscovici et al 1969)
Power of Minority Influence

Answer 94

A

Strength, research shows importance of consistency
Moscovici et al (1969) showed consistent minority opinion had greater effect on other people than an inconsistent opinion
Wood et al (1994), meta-analysis of 100 similar studies, found consistent minorities were most influential
Suggests consistent view is a minimum requirement for minority trying to influence majority

Answer 95

A

Strength, evidence change in majority’s position involves deeper processing of minority’s ideas
Martin et al (2003), presented message supporting particular viewpoint, measured ppts agreement
One group ppts heard minority agree with it, another group heard majority agree with it
Ppts exposed to conflicting view, attitudes measure again
Ppt less willing to change opinion if they listened to minority group compared to the majority group
Suggests minority message more deeply processed, more enduring effect, supports central argument of how minority influence works

Answer 96

A

Martin et al’s (2003) research made clear distinctions between majority and minority
Real world social influence situations more complicated
Majorities usually have more power and status, minorities very committed to their causes
Absent from minority influence research, minority is simply the smallest group
Martin’s findings very limited about minority influence in what it tells us about real-world situations

Answer 97

A

Limitation, research tasks often artificial
Moscovici et al’s (1969) task very simplistic, lacks mundane realism
Also, no importance of the outcome compared to political campaigning or jury decision making
Findings therefore are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-world situations, lacks external validity and mundane realism

Answer 98

A

Minority influence is rare, consistent minority only change’s view 8% of the time
May not be a useful concept to explain most of social influence
However, findings suggest more people are influenced but do not admit it
Could be because they do not want to be associated with minority in fear of being seen as “radical, awkward or weird even”
Those who do “go public” hold new views strongly (internalisation), they have converted to the minority view
Findings suggest minority influence may be relatively unusual but it is still a valid form of social influence that influences people powerfully and permanently when it does happen

Answer 99

A

Social change is when whole societies adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things, for example gay rights, women’s suffrage, accepting earth orbits the sun, environmental issues
Social Influence is the process where an individual or group changes their attitudes and behaviours, includes conformity, obedience and minority influence

Answer 100

A

All examples in relation to African-American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s
Drawing attention through social proof, 1950s marches drew attention to segregation of B and W ppl
Consistency, civil rights activist remained consistent with non-aggressive messages
Deeper processing of the issue, activism meant people had to think deeply about the unjustness of it
The Augmentation principle, Individuals risked their lives, freedom rides, many were beaten, personal risk indicates strong belief, reinforces their message
The Snowball effect, activists got attention of government, more and more people backed minority position, 1964 US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination (change from minority to majority support for civil rights)

Answer 101

A

Importance of dissent, confederate breaks power of majority, encourages others to do likewise, has the potential to ultimately lead to social change
Environmental and health campaigns appeal to normative social influence
Provide info about what others are doing, example, to reduce litter print messages on bins “Bin it-others do”
Same can be done with children smoking, makes it clear others their age do not do the same
Social change encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing

Answer 102

A

Importance of disobedient role models, M demonstrated rate of genuine ppts disobeying when confederate teacher refused to give shocks increased
Zimbardo (2007) suggests obedience used to create social change through gradual commitment
When small instruction obeyed, more difficult to resist bigger one, people “drift” to new kind of behaviour

Answer 103

A

Minority influence explains change (Nemeth 2009)
Role of deeper processing (Mackie 1987)
Research support for normative influences (Nolan et al 2008)
Counterpoint (Foxcroft et al 2015)
Barriers to social change (Bashir et al 2013)

Answer 104

A

Strength, psychologist can explain how minority influence brins about social change
Nemeth (2009), claims social change due to type of thinking minorities inspire
When considering minority arguments, ppl engage in divergent thinking
Broad rather than narrow, search for info, weighs up more options
Nemeth argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues
Shows why dissenting minorities are valuable, stimulate new ideas, open minds in ways majority cannot

Answer 105

A

Limitation, deeper processing may not play role in how minorities bring about social change
Assumed people converted due to them thinking more deeply about minority’s views
Mackie (1987) disagrees, presents evidence suggesting majority influence creates deeper processing if you do not share their views
We like to believe others share our views, think same ways as us, if we discover majority thinks something different, forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning
Suggests central element of minority influence challenged, casts doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change

Answer 106

A

Strength, research shows social influence processes bade on psych research work
Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change ppls energy use habits, researchers hung messages on front doors of houses every week for a month
Key message “most residents trying to reduce energy usage”, control was some residents had different message “save energy”, no reference to others behaviour
Significant decrease in energy usage in first group compared to second
Shows conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through normative social influence, valid explanation

Answer 107

A

People behv not always change through exposing them to social norms
Foxcroft et al (2015) reviewed 70 studies where social norms approach used to reduce student alcohol use
Researchers found small reduction in drinking quantity, no effect on drinking frequency
Suggests normative social influence does not always produce long-term social change

Answer 108

A

Bashir et al (2013) shows its difficult for minority to change views of majority
Researchers found ppl fail to behave in environmentally-friendly ways, view environmentalists in negative ways (weirdos), do not want to be associated with such groups
Researchers showed it’s still possible for minorities to overcome resistance to social change
Done by being flexible enough to adapt so that people will hear them out
Shows minority influence research can provide practical steps for minorities to promote social change, even when conditions are challenging

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Social Influence Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM