social influence

Question 1

Compliance

Answer 1

Public but not private acceptance. Going along with majority influence to gain approval. Behaviour or opinions stop as soon as group pressure stops.

Question 2

Identification

Answer 2

Public and private acceptance of majority influence in order to gain group acceptance. Don’t necessarily agree with everything group believes.

Question 3

Internalisation

Answer 3

Public and private acceptance of majority influence through adoption of the majority group’s belief system

Question 4

Informational social influence

Answer 4

When people look at the behaviour and opinions of others to help shape their own ideas. This generally occurs in unfamiliar situations where individuals aren’t sure what to do so we believe the majority is correct. We accept this as we want to be correct. (can lead to internalisation)

Question 5

Normative social influence

Answer 5

Going along with the majority influence to gain acceptance from the group and because we want to be liked. (can lead to compliance)

Question 6

Conformity

Answer 6

Change in behaviour/opinions due to group pressure (majority influence)

Question 7

Research support for ISI

Answer 7

Lucas et al
Students answer easy/hard maths problems. Greater conformity to incorrect answers on difficult questions. This was most true with students who said their mathematical ability was poor. Shows people conform when unsure which is predicted by ISI.

Question 8

Individual differences in NSI

Answer 8

NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. People less concerned with being liked are less affected. Naffiliators have greater need to be in relationships with others. McGhee and Teevan found students in high need of affiliation more likely to conform. Individual differences in ways people respond.

Question 9

ISI and NSI work together

Answer 9

Conformity reduced with one dissenting confederate in Asch’s experiment. NSI- dissenter provides social support, ISI- alternative source of info. Cant be sure which is due to. Casts doubt over view of ISI and NSI as 2 processes operating independently in conforming behaviour.

Question 10

Asch- conformity

Answer 10

Participants shown lines and had to identify which were the same size. didn’t know others were confederates. Participant answered wrong 37% of the time. 75% conformed at least once.
Variations
Group size- up to 3 confederates, rose to 32%. Addition had no further effect so group size has an impact up to a certain point. No need for large majority.
Unanimity- Introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. This dissenting confederate lead to reduced conformity, on average 25%. The dissenter enabled the participant to behave more independently. Suggests the influence of the majority depends on unanimity.
Task difficulty- made line judging more difficult. conformity increased. ISI plays greater role when task becomes harder. More likely to look to others for guidance to assume they’re right and we’re wrong.

Question 11

Asch evaluation

Answer 11

Study repeated and only one participant conformed in 396 trials.Study carried out in 1950s america which was a very conformist time. Made sense to conform to established social norms. Society changed since then, not as conformist now. Hard to generalise across time and cultures.
Knew in study, demand characteristics, artificial situation and task. Findings don’t generalise to every day situations.
Only men tested by Asch. research suggests women may be more conformist, more concerned about social relationships. Men all from US (individualistic culture, people more concerned about themselves than social relationships). In collectivist cultures conformity has been found to be higher- more orientated to group needs. Conformity sometimes higher than Asch found, may only apply to american men as Asch didn’t take into account gender and cultural differences.

Question 12

Conformity to social roles- Zimbardo

Answer 12

Set up mock prison where participants randomly assigned to role of guard or prisoner. Guards had complete power over prisoners.
Found participants quickly took up their roles. Behaviour because a threat to prisoner’s health so the study was stopped early. Prisoners ripped uniforms and swore. Guards constantly harassed prisoners and punished the smallest things to highlight the differences in social roles. Prisoners became depressed and anxious and some released early. This demonstrated the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour.

Question 13

Zimbardo evaluation

Answer 13

Some control over variables. Participants chosen/assigned randomly- attempt to rule out individual differences as reason for findings. Changes in behaviour due to situation. Higher internal validity.

Lack of realism- participants acting how they think they should due to stereotypes.

Ethical issues- Zimbardo’s dual roles in the study. Zimbardo spoke to a student who wanted to leave in his role of superintendent. The conversation was conducted as if the student was a prisoner asking to be released. Zimbardo didn’t act as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.

Question 14

Obedience Milgram

Answer 14

Participants had to give an electric shock each time a learner made a mistake. Paid to take part. The ad said it was a study on memory. Draw for roles rigged. Experimented used phrases such as ‘please continue’, ‘you must go on’.
None stopped below 300 volts. 12.5% stopped at 300 volts. 65% continued to the highest of 450 volts. Qualitative data collected- signs of tension such as sweating, lip biting, seizures.

Question 15

Milgram evaluation

Answer 15

Low internal validity. argued participants acted that way as they knew it wasn’t real. Milligram wasn’t testing what he wanted to. Recordings of the experiment show participants expressing their doubts over the shocks.

Good external validity. Milgram argued the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. This is supported by Hofling who studied nurses and found high levels of obedience to unjustified demands. Suggests obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s lab study can be generalised.

Ethical issues- deception (memory study, shocks real, believed allocation was random). Protection from harm

Question 16

Obedience- Situational variables

Answer 16

Milgram repeated study to see how situational variables impact obedience.
Proximity- When teacher and learner in same room obedience dropped from 65-40%. When the teacher had to move the learners hand onto a shock plate obedience further reduced to 30%. When the instructor left the room and gave instructions by phone obedience dropped to 21% and participants gave fake shocks.
Location- In run down building rather than uni setting. Experimenter has less authority. obedience fell to 48%.
Uniform- Experimenter called away due to phone call. Role taken over by ‘ordinary member of the public’ (confederate) in very day clothes (rather than lab coat). Obedience rate dropped to 20%.

Question 17

Milgram’s variations evaluation

Answer 17

Research support. Study repeated where members of public asked to do tasks like pick up litter by a confederate. They had different uniforms- milkman, suit and security guard uniform. Twice as likely to obey security guard than suit. Supports idea that uniform conveys authority.
Lack of internal validity. Participants worked out procedure was fake. Even milgram recognised the condition where experimenter was replaced with member of public was so contrived some participants may work out the truth. Unclear whether results are due to obedience or participants recognising deception and acting accordingly.
Findings have been replicated in other cultures, can be generalised.

Question 18

Obedience: social-psychological factors

Agentic state

Answer 18

Agentic state- Milgram proposed obedience to destructive authority occurs as person doesn’t take responsibility. A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility as we believe we are casting for an authority figure. This frees us from the demands of our conscience.
The opposite is an autonomous state. In this state we behave according to own principles and feel a sense or responsibility for actions.
The shift between these states is the agentic shift. Milgram suggested this occurs when we perceive someone else as a figure of authority.
He suggested people remain in this state due to binding factors which allow people to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour.

Question 19

Obedience: social-psychological factors

legitimacy of authority

Answer 19

We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. The authority is legitimate as it is agreed by society. The consequences of legitimate of authority is that some people are granted power to punish others. We accept police and court can push wrongdoers. we are willing to hand control of our behaviour to people who will use authority appropriately. We learn acceptance of legitimacy of authority from childhood (teachers/parents).

Legitimacy of authority can be destructive and cause people to behave in dangerous ways. This has been shown in history through powerful leaders such as Hitler, and in studies such as Milgram’s, which used prods to cause participants to perform behaviours against their conscience.

Question 20

Obedience: social-psychological factors

Agentic state evaluation

Answer 20

Research support. Participants shown film of milgram’s studying asked who they believe is responsible for harm to learner. They blamed the experimenter not participant. Also indicated responsibility was due to legitimate authority. Recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation.

Doesn’t explain all research findings such as why all participants didn’t obey. Limited explanation, only account for some situations of obedience.

Question 21

Obedience: social-psychological factors

legitimacy of authority evaluation

Answer 21

Useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Studies show countries differ in the degree to which people obey. Study repeated in different countries and different obedience levels to authority levels found. shows in some cultures authority is more likely to e accepted as legitimate and lead to obedience. This reflects how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. Supportive findings of cross cultural research increase the validity of the explanation.

Question 22

Obedience: dispositional explanations

Answer 22

Authoritarian personality
Adorno el at investigated the causes of an obedient personality. They developed the F-scake which is used to measure authoritarian personality.
They found people with authoritarian learnings (scored high on f-scale) identified with strong people and were contemptuous of the weak. They were also very conscious of their status and showed greater respect to those of a higher status.

Authoritarian characteristics: tendency to be especially obedient to authority. Extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it. Highly conventional views to sex, race and gender. Believe we need powerful leaders to enforce traditional values. Inflexible in their outlook, very uncomfortable with change.

Origin of authoritarian personality:
Concluded its formed in childhood due to harsh parenting with a lack of unconditional love. Parenting style would be strict with impossibly high expectations.
These create hostility and resentment in the child which they can’t express directly to their parents so those feelings are displaced onto those considered to be weaker.

Question 23

Obedience: dispositional explanations

evaluation

Answer 23

Research support. Interviews conducted with highly obedient participants (scored high on f-scale). Found link between obedience and authoritarian personality. Only correlation between variables, can’t draw conclusion that AP causes obedience. May be 3rd factor involved e.g. lower education levels and the 2 variables aren’t directly linked.

Limited explanation. Explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality unlikely to be explanation for whole population. e.g. in pre war germany many displayed racist and anti semitic behaviour. Despite this they must have all differed in personality in many ways. Extremely unlikely all possess authoritarian personality. Alternative explanation would be much more realistic.

Question 24

Resistance to social influence

Answer 24

Social support
Can help people resist conformity. Pressure to conform reduced if others aren’t. Doesn’t have to be right, just that someone else doesn’t follow majority, as shown by Asch. Effect of the dissent isn’t long lasting (if the non comforting participant comforts again, so does the participant).
Can help resist obedience. Pressure to obey reduced if someone else disobeys. Participant may not follow the disobedient person’s actions but it frees them to act from their own conscience.

Locus of control
Proposed by Rotter. Concerned with internal vs external control. Internals believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves. Externals believe things happen without their own control.
This is measured on a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other.
Internal LOC- more likely to resist pressure to conform/obey. Take personal responsibility for their actions so are more likely to act based on own beliefs and resist pressure from others. High LOC also usually have higher intelligence, confidence, and less need for social approval. These lead to greater resistance.

Question 25

Resistance to social influence

social support evaluation

Answer 25

Research supporting the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity. Conformity decreased with 1 dissenter in an Asch type study. Occurred even if dissenter had very poor sight (so unable to judge lines). Shows resistance isn’t just motivated by following what someone says but frees the participant from group pressure.

Research supporting the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. Study conducted similar to milgram but participants in groups. Obedience decreased showing peer support is linked to greater resistance.

Question 26

Resistance to social influence

LOC evaluation

Answer 26

Research supporting link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Milligrams study repeated and participants measured on whether theyre internals or externals. 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock. 23% of externals didn’t. Internals showed greater resistance. Increases validity of explanation.

Contradictory research. Over time people have become more resistant to obedience but more external. If resistance links to internal LOC they should become more internal.

Question 27

Minority influence

Answer 27

One person or small group influences beliefs of others. Most likely lead to internalisation. Main processes in minority influence:
Consistency- Increases interest from others. Makes others rethink own views .
Commitment- minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views. Important that these are at some risk to the minority as this shows commitment. majority group member then pay even more attention.
Flexibility- Extreme consistency can be interpreted negatively. Can be seen as rigid and inflexible. This is off putting to majority and makes any conversion to the minority view unlikely. Instead members need to be able to adapt their view and accept reasonable counter arguments.
The process of change-above factors make people think about the topic. If you hear something new and the view is consistent and passionate you think about it more deeply. This leads to deeper processing which is important in conversion. Over time more people switch from the majority to minority position. The more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion, which is the snowball effect. Gradually the minority view becomes the majority view and change has occurred.

Question 28

Minority influence evaluation

Answer 28

Support for consistency- Moscovici showed a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on people than an inconsistent opinion. A meta analysis carried out on similar studies also found consistent minorities were also most influential. This shows consistency is a major factor in minority influence.
Support that change to a minority position involves deeper processing. Martin et al gave participants a message supporting a particular viewpoint. They found people were less willing to change their opinions if they listened to a minority group than a majority group. This suggests the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a greater effect, supporting the central argument of how minority influence occurs.

Question 29

Minority influence Moscovici

Answer 29

Demonstrated minority influence through a study where participants had to identify the colour of slides. 2 confederates consistently said the slides were green on 2/3 of the trials. Participants gave the same wrong answer on 8.5% of trials, 32% gave the same answer as the minority al least once. With an inconsistent minority agreement fell to 1.25%.

Question 30

Social influence and social change

Answer 30

Social influence is the process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours.

Asch highlighted the importance of dissenting on conformity. In one variation a confederate gave correct answers throughout the procedure. This broke the power of the majority, encouraging others to dissent. This dissent has the power to lead to social change. Environmental and health campaigns use conformity processes by appealing to normative social influence. They provide info about what others are doing e.g.. reducing littering by printing messages on bins. Social change occurs by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing.

Milgram’s research demonstrated the importance of disobedient role models. In a variation a confederate teacher refused to give shocks. The obedience rate dropped dramatically. Zimbardo also demonstrated how obedience can lead to social change through the process of gradual commitment. Once a small instruction is obeyed it is much harder to resist a bigger one, which leads to a gradual change in behaviour.

Minority can also lead to social change. Attention drawn to minority. Must be committed to gain attention but flexible so not off putting. The attention leads to deeper processing as people consider an alternative viewpoint. The snowball effect then occurs where more people take on the minority view so the process speeds up. Leads to social cryptomnesia where people recognise social change but don’t remember to happening.

Question 31

Social influence and social change

evaluation

Answer 31

Research support for normative influences. Messages were hung on doors saying most residents were trying to reduce energy usage. As a control some people had messages simply asking to reduce energy usage making no reference to anyone else. Significant decreases in energy usage were found in the first group. This shows conformity can lead to social change through normative social influence.

Social changes happen slowly if at all. e.g. taken decades for attitudes to smoking to shift. Nemeth argues the effects of minorities are likely to be indirect and delayed. Indirects as majority is influenced only by matters related to the issue at hand, not the central issue itself. Delayed as effects may not be seen for some time. Limitation of using minority influence to explain social change as it shows its effects are fragile and its role in social influence is very limited.