Social Influence Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Asch baseline study aim and introduction.

A
  1. Experiment to investigate whether people would conform or not in an unambiguous situation. (The answer to the task is very obvious).
    He used 123 American male college students.
    They were asked to take part in a simple perception test as a prelude to the main study, however this actually was the main study.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Asch baseline study procedure.

A

Ps given a line display.
6 confederates around a table with one real participant.
Went around the table, starting with confederate 1, the real participant was second last.
18 trials, on 12 confederate were told to give the same wrong answer.
They would see how many of the real participants would conform with the group and give the wrong answer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Asch baseline study findings.

A

Confederates gave wrong answer 37% of Ps conformed.
74% conformed at least once.
26% never gave a wrong answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Variables in Asch study.

A

Group size - 4% conformity with 1 confederate, 14% with 2, 32% with 3. Conformity can happen with very few people.

Unanimity - confederate that agreed with Ps answers conformity dropped 5.5% to 31.5%. When confed gives different wrong answer conformity drops but not as much.

Task difficulty - lines were closer in length conformity increased, can also occur when looking for guidance (informational social influence).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Strengths of Asch’s research.

A

Lab experiment - easy to replicate and good control over EVs

Supporting studies - Lucas et al (2006) using maths questions, found people conformed more when the question was harder, conforming due to task difficulty. Increases the reliability - same results with different variables.
EXT : students with less confidence in their maths ability were more likely to conform.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Limitations of Asch’s research.

A

Ethical issues.

Research may be culture bound - all participants were American. Lacks populations validity - findings cannot be generalised outside of western cultures.
EXT : Ps were also all male.

Groups were artificial - did not resemble groups present in everyday life. Lacks external validity - doesn’t tell us about conformity in the real world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Types of conformity

A

Internalisation - accept majority view as correct, causing a permanent change in beliefs and behaviour.

Identification - go along with the group because a person identifies with them, may not fully agree. Behaviour change, beliefs stay the same

Compliance - outwardly go along with the group but privately disagree (group of strangers) to avoid embarrassment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Explanations for conformity -

A

Normative social influence - want to be seen as normal, people conform because they want to be liked (temporary).
Leads to compliance

Informational social influence - conform to be correct. (permanent).
Leads to Internalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Strength of NSI.

A

Supporting evidence - baseline Asch study, 74% conformed at least once just to fit in, desire to not be rejected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Limitation of NSI.

A

Lacks predictive validity - nAffiliators (people who have greater need for social relationships) want to relate to to other people making them more likely to conform.
Doesn’t consider individual differences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Strength of ISI.

A

Supporting evidence - Lucas (2006) people more likely to conform when the maths questions were more difficult. Asch - more ambiguous = higher conformity rate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Limitation of ISI.

A

Difficult to separate NSI and ISI, more likely that they exist together in the real world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Stanford Prison Experiment procedure.

A

Zimbardo set up ‘mock prison’
21 male student volunteers tested as ‘emotionally stable’
Randomly assigned to prisoner or guard role.
Encouraged to conform by using uniforms (reflecting status of role) and instructions on how to behave - created a loss of personal identity.
Guards were reminded that they have power over the prisoners - increased aggression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Stanford Prison Experiment findings.

A

Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled, guards retaliated with fire extinguishers.
Guards appeared to enjoy the power they had, taking to their rules enthusiastically (harassed prisoners constantly, frequent head counts to create opportunities to administer punishments).
Prisoners depressed and anxious.
One prisoner released for symptoms of psychological disturbance.
Study ended on 6th day instead of 14th.

EXT: opportunity to talk with priest, introduced themselves as numbers instead of names, lost identity, feeling real.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Stanford Prison Experiment conclusions.

A

Social roles have a strong influence on individuals behaviour.
Roles were easily taken on by all participants.
Guards became aggressive and prisoner became submissive.
Ps behaving as though they are really in prison.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Strengths of SPE

A

Successfully mimicked a prison.

Practical applications - recognition of ethical guidelines in prisons.

Control over key variables (selection of Ps) - rule out individual personality differences as an explanation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Limitations of SPE.

A

Ethical issues

2/3 of the guards did not act brutally - Reicher and Haslam (2006).

Lacks ecological validity - demand characteristics, did not have the realism of an actual prison.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Milgram’s research prodecure.

A

find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to (relation to holocaust)

40 volunteer participants.
Ps believed the study was investigating the effects of punishment on learning.
Tested one at a time and always given the role of the teacher (fixed ballot).
Teacher was instructed to give the learner an electric shock if they answered incorrectly, increasing by 15 volts each time up to 450 volts.
‘learner’ protested by banging on the wall.
When teacher questioned the study they were told they had no choice but to continue.
Experiment stopped when teacher refused to continue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Milgram’s research findings.

A

65% of participants continued to the max shock level (450)
No one stopped before 300, 12.5% stopped at 300.
Everyone stopped and questioned the study at least once.
Ps showed signs of extreme tension, sweating, nail biting, 3 had panic attacks.
14 psych students predicted no more than 3% of participants would reach 450 volts.
84% were glad to participate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Milgram’s research conclusions.

A

American participants in his study were willing to obey orders even if they may cause harm to another person.
Milgram suspected that there was certain factors that encouraged obedience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Strengths of Milgram’s research

A

Highly controlled - all Ps experienced the same procedure, experimenter followed a script, etc. Increases validity bc results are most likely due to the pressure to obey rather than EVs in low control experiments.

. Behaviour suggests they thought it was real, extreme stress, social desirability bias to continue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Limitations of Milgram’s research.

A

Ethical issues - although there was no official ethical guidelines at the time.

Lacks population validity - all male, american Ps.

Lacks internal validity - not really measuring obedience. Orne and Holland (1968) Ps may not have believed the experimental set-up, Ps needed to believe the situation to measure obedience. (couldn’t see learner, experimenters response was sus, not helping dying man). Perry (2013) said only 1/2 the Ps thought it was real.

23
Q

Situational variables (Milgram) - proximity.

A

Closeness.
Teacher and learner in the same room, obedience decreased to 40% (baseline = 65%)
Touch proximity - teacher force learners hand onto ‘electroshock plate’, obedience decreased to 30%
Remote instruction - experimenter leaves and gives instructions via telephone, obedience drops to 20.5%, in some cases teacher lied about shocking learner.

24
Q

Situational variables (Milgram) - location.

A

Baseline study at Yale university - obedience 65%.

Variation at run down office building in Bridgeport - 48.5% obedience.

25
Q

Situational variables (Milgram) - uniform.

A

Baseline study experimenter in lab coat - obedience 65%.

Experimenter dresses as an ordinary man - obedience 20%.

26
Q

Strengths of research into situational variables.

A

Supporting research - Bickman (1974) field experiment, asked Ps to pick up bag, give money to someone, guard obeyed 76%, milkman obeyed 47%, pedestrian obeyed 30%.

Replicated in other cultures - Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to a confederate in an interview 90% obeyed, obedience dropped when instructor left.

27
Q

Limitations of research into situational variables.

A

Mandel (1998) argues this perspective gives people an excuse for their anti-social behaviour, Nazis say they were just obeying orders which resulted in killing 6m Jews.

Overlooks dispositional factors (personality) - oversimplify.

28
Q

Explanations for obedience - legitimacy of authority.

A

Situational
More likely to obey of they have a higher status in a social hierarchy.
Taught to accept this authority from an early age.
Visible symbols of authority - uniform, gives them legitimacy.
Problems when legitimate authority becomes destructive.

29
Q

Strengths of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience.

A

Real life example - Holocaust, My Lai. Adds validity as it has been proven correct.

Supporting research - Milgram (removed lab coat obedience dropped from 65% to 20%, moved from Yale obedience dropped to 48.5%) Adds validity as it is proven correct.

30
Q

Limitations of legitimacy as an explanation for obedience.

A

Contradicting research - Rank and Jacobson - 16/18 nurses disobeyed doctor to administer excessive drug dose.
However - Hoffling et al (1966) - 21/22 nurses would administer a drug when ordered by an unknown doctor.

Ignores other (dispositional) factors such as authoritarian personality. Does not explain why disobedience occurs.

31
Q

Explanations for obedience - agentic state.

A

Situational.
Not Acting autonomously (choosing actions, people act according to their own principles) and entering an agentic state - carrying out orders from an authority figure (becoming an agent).
Agentic shift.
During agentic state person does not feel responsible, still experience anxiety - reduced by shifting responsibility to the victim (binding factors). Help top ignore or minimise the damaging effects.

32
Q

Strengths of agentic state as an explanation for obedience.

A

Supporting research - Milgram - 65% who administered 450 volts were arguably in agentic state - acted more easily as the experimenters agent

  • variation - additional confederate administered electric shocks, those who went up to 450 volts rose from 65% to 92.5% - felt less responsible.
33
Q

Limitations of agentic state as an explanation for obedience.

A

Contracting research - Milgram - not all participants obeyed

Rank and Jacobson - 16/18 nurses disobeyed

34
Q

Explanations for obedience - authoritarian personality.

A

First identified by Adorno et al (1950).
Peron with extreme respect for authority - more likely to be obedient.

Study - 2000 middle class, white Americans, using questionnaire ‘F-scale’ to measure fascist tendencies (extreme far right). Those who scored high showed disrespect towards the ‘weak’, were status-conscious and had excessive respect for those in higher power.

Foundations laid in early childhood as a result of strict parenting - resentment and hostility is displaced onto those who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating) because they fear punishment.

35
Q

Strengths of authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

A

Supporting research - Milgram - post experimental interviews with Ps who were fully obedient - found t5hat they scored higher on the F-scale.

However these participants characteristics that were unusual for people with authoritarian personality - did not glorify their father, did not receive unusual levels of punishment in childhood, were not hostile towards mothers.

36
Q

Limitations for authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience.

A

Other variables may play a role - individual differences - Middendrop and Meleon (1990) found less educated people were more likely to display authoritarian personality characteristics.

37
Q

What is resistance to social influence?

A

The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority.

Social support and locus of control

38
Q

Social support

A

Situational
Having the presence of other people who resist pressures can help others do the same, act as models.

Example: Asch - extra confederate to provide social support caused conformity to decrease to 31.5%

39
Q

Strengths of social support.

A

Real world research - 8 week programme for pregnant 14-19 year olds resist pressure to smoke. Those allocated a ‘buddy’ were significantly less likely to smoke. Increasing validity.

40
Q

Limitations of social support.

A

Other explanations exists - locus of control.

41
Q

Locus of control.

A

Dispositional
Sense we have that directs events in our lives.
Internal locus of control - person who believes their life is determined by their own decisions, they are in charge of what happens in their life.
External locus of control - person who believes their life is determined by fate or luck and they have no control over what happens.

42
Q

Strength for locus of control

A

`Supporting research - one researcher repeated Milgram’s and measured whether people had internal or external LOC. 37% of internal showed some resistance, only 23% of external showed resistance.
Significant difference. Increasing validity.

43
Q

Limitation of locus of control

A

Contradicting research - analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 year period. Found people became more external but more resistant. We would expect that as people become more resistant they become more internal over.

44
Q

What is minority influence?

A

A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

Examples: suffragettes, LGBTQ

45
Q

Moscovici’s research

A

Blue slide, green slide study.
6 people asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides, state whether slide was blue or green.
2 confederates consistently said slides were green
Participants gave the same wrong answer (green) on 8.42% of trials.

Second group exposed to inconsistent minority - confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times.
Agreement with green fell to 1.25%

Control group got slide colour wrong on 0.25% of trials.

46
Q

Processes in minority influence - consistency

A

Moscovici’s research suggests that minority is most effective when they are consistent.
Agreement between people of the minority groups = synchronic consistency - everyone saying the same thing.
Minority being consistent over time = diachronic consistency.

47
Q

Processes in minority influence - flexibility

A

Relentless consistency can be counter productive as it can be seen as unreasonable by the majority.
Members of minority need to be willing to compromise and adapt.

48
Q

Processes in minority influence - commitment

A

Minority shows dedication to their position by making a personal sacrifice, this will increase the influence. Shows that they are not acting out of self interest - augmentation principle/
Causes the majority to pay attention to minority.

Then the process of change occurs - snowball effect, where the minority becomes the majority.

49
Q

Strength for research into minority influence

A

Research evidence for consistency - meta analysis of over 100 studies found that minorities which were most influential were consistent. adaptation of Moscovici.

Research evidence for flexibility - participants in groups of 4 had to agree on compensation. One confederate in each group.
2 conditions - minority argued for a low rate of compensation (inflexible) and minority argued for a low rate, but compromised to slightly higher rate (flexible).
Inflexible - minority had little or no effect.
Flexible - majority is much more likely to compromise.

50
Q

Limitations for research for minority influence

A

Most research is conducted in labs - rarely ‘real’ groups, often involve artificial task. Lacks external validity.

Moscovici’s research lacks population validity - 172 female Americans. Unable to generalise the results from the study.

51
Q

What is social change?

A

This occurs when whole societies, rather than individuals, adopt new attitudes and beliefs.

52
Q

How is the process of minority influence linked to social change?

A

Process of minority influence is key in bringing about social change.
This involves:
1) drawing attention through proof
2) consistency - synchronic and diachronic. Flexibility.
3) deeper processing - majority starts to question.
4) augmentation principle - minority makes sacrifice to show commitment.
5) snowball effect - eventually forms new majority.
6) social cryptomensia - social change has happened, people know but maybe don’t know how.

53
Q

Strength for social influence and social change

A

Research - one study aimed to see if they could change people’s energy use habits - signs saying that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. (Control groups which used signs asking them to save energy, but had no reference to anyone’s behaviour)
Significant decrease in energy use in first group compared to second.
Shows conformity can lead to social change, increasing validity.

other research shows that minority can have an affect - Asch and Milgram, however both involve an artificial task.

54
Q

Limitations for social influence and social change

A

Behaviour is not always changed by exposing people to social norms - review of 70 studies which tried to reduce student alcohol use by printing messages on beer mats. Only led to a small reduction in drinking quantity and no affect in drinking frequency. Majority influence cannot affect social change.

Barriers to social change - identification is overlooked (conforming to identify with group). One study found that participants did not want to se associated with stereotypical social change groups such as environmentalists due to the negative connotations. Reducing minority influence.