Social influence Flashcards

Question

Stanford Prison experiment findings

Answer 1

- guards took role with enthusiasm- treating prisoners harshly - prisoners rebelled within 2 days-ripped uniforms, shouting/swearing at guards - guards used 'divide and rule'- played prisoners off against each other - harrassed prisoners constantly- reminded them of powerless, headcounts with their numbers in night, created opportunities to create rules and administer punishment (physial- press-ups etc), controlled everything (toilets etc) - after rebellion was shut down, prisoners became depressed, subdued and anxious - one released as showed symptoms of psychological disturbance - two more released on 4th day - one prisoner went on hunger strike- guards tried to force feed, put him in 'the hole' (tiny dark closet) - guards identified more and more closely with their roles- behaviour became increasingly brutal and aggressive, some enjoying power they had over prisoners

Answer 2

- social roles appear to have strong influence on individuals' behaviour - guards became brutal and prisoners became aggressive - such roles easily taken on by all participants - even volunteers who came in to perform specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as in prison not study

Answer 3

Control: - good control over key variables - selection of participants- emotionally stable chosen, randomly assigned roles- could rule out individual personality differences as explanation for result - if guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles by chance, then behaviour must have been to role itself - increased the internal validity of the study- can be more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity Realism felt by participants: - McDermott- participants behaved as if prison was real - 90% of prisoners private discussions about prison life - discussed how it was impossible to leave before 'sentences' were over - prisoner 416- stated through it was real prison but ran by psychologists not government - guards too- would work overtime with no pay - increases internal validity- suggests the SPE depicted the social roles in a real prison Ethical guidelines: - led to improved ethical guidelines from the American psychological association - questionnaire of mental stability - consent form

Answer 4

Lack of realism: - Banuazizi and Movahedi- argued PPs merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to social role - PPs performance based on stereotypes of how prisoners/guards supposed to behave - e.g. one of guards claimed he based role on brutal character from film 'Cool Hand Luke' - would also explain why prisoners rioted- thought that was what real prisoners did - suggest SPE tell us little about conformity in actual prisons - demand characteristics- may not be generalisable- poor ecological validity Exaggerates the power of roles: - Fromm - Zimbardo may have exaggerated power of roles to explain behaviour influence - only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally - 1/3 attempted to apply rules fairly - the rest actively tried to help and support prisoners- sympathised, offered cigarettes, reinstated privilidges (Zimbardo, 2007)- most guards able to resist situational pressures 0 suggests Zimbardo overstated view that SPE PPS were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors (e.g. personality) Alternative explanation: - Zimbardo's explanation for behaviour was that conforming to social role came naturally and easily - being given role of gards will mean prisoners inevitably behave brutally as that is what is expected of role - Reicher and Haslam- criticise explain nation as doesn't account for behaviour of non-brutal guards- used social identity theory to argue that guards had to actively identify with their roles to act as they did Population validity: - all male - USA - hard to generalise Ethics: - PPs not protected from psychological harm

Answer 5

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - BBC Prison study

Answer 6

- 15 men randomly divided into prisoners/guards | - 8 days

Answer 7

- PPs didn't conform automatically to assigned role as it happened in SPE - Prisoners increasingly identified as a group, worked collectively to challenge the authority of the guards and establish a more egalitarian set of social relations within the prison - The guards also failed to identify with their roles and so were reluctant to exert their authority on the prisoners- led to a shift of power and the collapse of the prisoner guard system - ethical guidelines med and considered throughout experiment - conformity is shift not automatic- contradicts Zimbardo

Answer 8

A type of social conformity in which an individual follows a direct order, usually from someone a figure of authority who has the ability to punish if behaviour is not forthcoming

Answer 9

- O is in a hierarchy, C is between people of equal status - O emphasis on power, C emphasis on acceptance - O behaviour may differ from the behaviour of authority figure, C behaviour adopted is extremely similar, if not the same to that of the group - O prescription for action is explicit, but C requirement to yield is often implicit and unspoken - O participants embrace obedience to behaviour, but C PPs deny it

Answer 10

- Adorno (1950) started research after WWII investigating antisemitism to understand treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany - Authoritarian personality- more prone to obedience- submissive to those in authority (unquestioned obedience, looked up to superiors, believed in ridgod social structure, prejudiced against minority groups) - high level of obedience to Hitlers authority not die to direct force- mass willingness to cooperate with Nazi regime and obey Hitlers command ( helping round up Jews and send to Auschwitz, shopping neighbours to Gestapo etc) - interpreted by allies as being due to German's 'national character', depicted as authoritarian, militaristic and obedient

Answer 11

Milgram (1963)

Answer 12

- asses obedience in a situation where an authority figure (experimenter) ordered the PP (teacher) to give increasingly strong shocks tp a learner

Answer 13

- 40 American males, 25-50 y.o, recruited from newspaper adverts - False 'random' allocation of teacher and learner - PP saw learner (confederate) strapped up in chair o electrodes, experienced small shock themselves to experience pain, make it seem real - no other genuine shocks in the procedure - PP in different room to confederate - PP ordered to shock learner every time he god wrong answer on wird pair memory teat - Board of switches for chicks from 30-450V, labelled 'slight shock to 'danger-severe sock' - heard PP struggle, protest/ pounding on wall up to 315V, then silent - told they must go on - all PP's debriefed after, told behaviour was normal - in a questionnaire, 84% glad to have participated - asked 14 psychology students to predict- on average, thought no more than 3% would go to 450V- unexpected results

Answer 14

- Every PP delivered up to 300V - 5 (12.5%) stopped there - 65% continued to highest (450V) - also qualitative observations- many seemed to sweat, tremble- intense distress- 3 even had seizures - concluded that Germans weren't different- Americans also extremely obedience to authority- normal people willing to obey even in believing its hurtig others

Answer 15

Control: - Lab experiment- high levels of control - ensured each PP had exactly same experience e.g. verbal instructions from experimenter, noises from confederate, same names etc - allows to be repeated and checked for reliability - makes possible for cause and effect to be established as lack of extraneous variables- can be confident people obeyed due to presence of authority figure Research support: - french documentary- Beauvois et al - PPs ordered to give shocks by presenter as part of 'game' - 80% gave max 460V to apparently unconscious man- almost identical behaviour shown as in Milgram's - supports original findings- not due to special circumstances Genuine effects: - Sheridan and King- PPs given real shock to puppies from orders from experiment - Despite real distress of animal, 54% of men and all women gave what they thought was fatal shock - suggests effects in Milgram's were genuine as people behaved obediently even when shocks were real Practical application: - Helps us understand why Nazi soldiers blindly obeyed to carrying out atrocities - However, Madel suggests it is offensive to say the Nazi's themselves were victims of authority figures

Answer 16

Low internal validity; - Milgram reported 75% of PPs said they believed shocks were genuine - Orne and Holland- believed PPss believed in way the did as didn't believe shocks were real, so were play acting - Perry- listened to tapes of Milgrams PPs- reported only half believed they were real, 2 thirds were disobedient - suggests PPs may have been responding to demand characteristics - counter- Sheridan and king Alternative explanation to findings: - Haslam et al- showed PPs obeyed when experimenter delivered first 3 verbal prods (please go on, experiment requires you to continue, absolutely essential) - however, every PP given 4th ( you have no other choice, you must go on), disobeyed - Social identity theory- PPs only obeyed when they identified with scientific aims of research ('experiment requires')- wen ordered to blindly obey authority figure, they refused - Shows SIT may be more valid interpretation of findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science is a reason for obedience Ethics: - PPs were deceived- e.g. false random allocation of roles, thought shocks were real- Milgram debriefed but Baumrind objected as believes deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for PPs and researchers - also protection from psychological harm broken- 3 suffered seizures, lots f distress- makes it hard to replicate and test for reliability, Pps shouldn't be negatively affected

Answer 17

Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a persons behaviour (alternative to dispositional variables- explained in terms of personality)

Answer 18

Situational variables: - proximity x 3 - Location - Uniform - Number of teachers

Answer 19

T + L in same room: - in baseline, T could hear but not see L - when in same room dropped from 65-40% Touch proximity: - T had to force L's hand on electroshock plate if refused to himself after giving wrong answer - dropped further to 30% Remote instructor: - E gave orders to T over phone rather than being in same room - Dropped to 20.5%, also frequently pretended to give shocks Conclusion/explanation: - decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from consequences of actiobs- hen physically separated, T ess aware of harm caused to another person- more obedient - less obedience when cat see E- depersonalised- easier to disobey

Answer 20

- changed location to run down office block (experiment ran by advertising agency) rather than prestigious Yale university, (researcher wears jeans and t-shirt) - Obedience fell to 47.5% Explanation/conclusions: - prestigious university- gave legitimacy and authority- more obedient as perceived E had legitimacy so though obedience was expected - Still quite high in office blocks due to perceived scientific nature of the study

Answer 21

- in baseline, E worse gery lab coat as symbol of authority - Variation: E called away because of inconvenient telephone call at the start of procedure- role taken over by 'ordinary member of public' (confederate) in everyday clothes - obedience dropped to 20% Conclusion/explanation: - uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority - we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate (granted by society) - someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience

Answer 22

- PPs could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches - rose to 92.5% Explanation/conclusion: - less personal responsibility - obedience increases- relates to his Agency theory

Answer 23

Research Support: - Bickmen - field experiment in NYC - 3 confederates dressed in different outfits- jacket and tie, milkmans, security guards uniform - individually stood in street and ask passers by to perform tasks e.g. picking up litter or handing over coin for parking meter - people 2x more likely to obey to security guard uniform to jacket and tie - supports Milgram- situational variables like uniform doesn't have powerful effect on obedience Cross Cultural replications: - findings have been replicated in other cultures - Meeus and Raajmakers- used more realistic procedure than Milgrams to study obedience in Deutch PPs- PP ordered to say stressful thins to someone in an interview (confederate) desperate for a job- 90% obeyed - when person giving orders wasn't present (proximity), obedience decreased dramatically - suggests findings not just relevant to American men, but also to other cultures and women COUNTER: - Smith and Bond- identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jorda (culturally different from USA), however other countries involved (spain, Australia, Scotland etc) more similar (similar notions about role of authority) - may not be appropriate to conclude that Milgrams findings (including variations) are generalisable to most/all cultures Control: - Lab experiment- high levels of control - ensured each PP had exactly same experience e.g. verbal instructions from experimenter, noises from confederate, same names etc - allows to be repeated and checked for reliability - makes possible for cause and effect to be established as lack of extraneous variables- can be confident people obeyed due to presence of authority figure, and obeyedience changed due to variations

Answer 24

Low internal validity: - Orne and Holland - PP even more likely to realise procedure was faked in variations due to extra manipulation of variables - When E replaced by member of public (uniform), even Milgram recognised this situation was so contrived that some PPs may well have worked out truth - Unclear whether findings are genuinely due to operation of obedience and variations or whether PPs saw through deception and just play acted- demand characteristics The danger of the situational perspective: - finding support a situational explanation of obedience - Mandel- suggests it is offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest Nazi's were simply obeying orders- offers an excuse/alibi for evil behaviour - also ignores role of dispositional factors (e.g. personality)- implying Nazi's were victims of situational factors beyond their control

Answer 25

- agentic state | - legitimate authority

Answer 26

- when we are responsible for our own behaviour- free to behave according to own principles

Answer 27

- when we act as 'agents' for authority figure - hand over responsibility for actions to them - feel no personal responsibility for behaviour- frees us from demands of our conscience

Answer 28

- agentic shift - authority has greater power as higher in social hierachy- believe they are responsible for actions so don't think they'll be blamed for consequences of behaviours- more likely to obey - can cause moral strain- when someone feels uncomfortable going against their morals in order to obey- knows what they are ding is wrong but feels pressure to obey

Answer 29

- aspects of the situation that allow someone to ignore the effect of their behaviour to avoid moral strain - use strategies such as shifting responsibility to the victim (e.g. he was foolish to volunteer) to help us cope

Answer 30

Research support: - Milgrams research supports this theory - PPs demonstrated moral strain when deciding whether to continue- seizures, laughing fits etc - those who decided to disobey no longer showed these emotions- suggesting they weren't experiencing moral strain as in autonomous state - supports agentic state as although people may feel uncomfortable obeying, they will do so when in agentic state - many asked questions e.g. 'who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed' - when experimenter responded 'I am', PPS often continued with no objection- acting as experimenters agent Real-life application: - The actions of Nazi war criminals were defended in court using the defence that they were simply following orders- felt as though they weren't responsible for actions - strength as theory can make people aware of the dangers of igniting feelings of moral strain

Answer 31

Limited explanation: - agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience - Rank and Jacobson in repeat of hoffling study using mame of real rather than fake drug - found 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient - doctor was obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgrams PPS - suggests that at best, agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience - Mandel- WWII- German Reserve police battalion 101- shot many civilians in small Poland Town- didn't have direct orders too- challenges agentic shift as behaved autonomously Alternative explanations: - French and Raven proposed 5 different types of power- legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent - social power held by Milgram may have caused obedience not agentic shift- limited or inaccurate theory Describes rather than explains obedience: - theory states that people obey because they are agents of authority - but doesn't actually state how the agentic shift takes place and what the processes involved are or how it could be measured - makes it hard to carry out research to test the theory- weakens its validity Cruelty rather than agentic shift: - plain human cruelty may explain obedience better than agentic shift - Milgrams PPs may have used the situation to express their sadistic tendencies- stanford prison experiment supports this - guards inflicted rapidly escalating cruelty on prisoners even though no authority figure telling them to do this - shows it may not be agentic control, which causes obedience - instead, it may be a certain aspect of human nature

Answer 32

- most societies structured in a hierarchail way- means people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us (e.g. parents, teachers, police officers, security guards/bouncers) - the authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society - most accept that authority figures can exercise social power for society to function smoothly - some are granted power to punish- e.g. we generally agree that police officers and courts can punish wrongdoers- means we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately - learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood- parents initially then teachers and adults generally

Answer 33

Destructive authority: - legitimate authority can become destructive - history often shows charismatic and powerful leaders (e.g. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot) using their legitimate powers for destructive purposes- ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous - evident in Milgram's study- when the experimenter used prods to order PPs to act in a way that went against their consciences

Answer 34

- experimenter had legitimate authority- coat was uniform- symbol of legitimate authority - suggests that obedience is more likely when the individual believes the authority to be legitimate and credible - variations- when in Yale with a lab coat, full obedience was 65% - when no uniform, obedience fell to 20%, and to 48% when in office blocks - shows obedience is more likey when authority seems legitimate

Answer 35

Explains cultural differences: - Kilham and Mann- only 16% of Australian women fully obeyed in Milgram style experiment - Mantell found very different result with German PPs- 85% - shows in some countries, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals - reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures Research evidence to support the impact of legitimacy of authority on obedience: - Tarnow (2000) - provided support for explanation through the study of aviation accidents - Studied data where black box was available and where flight crew actions were a contributory factor in the crash - found there was excessive dependence on the captains authority and expertise with one second officer claiming that although he noticed the captain taking a particularly risky approach, he said nothing as he assumed 'the captain knew what he was doing - the safety board concluded that these errors were found in 19 of the 37 accidents investigated - Legitimacy of authority can explain real life obedience: - Keman and Hamilton suggest the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war is explained by the power hierarchy of the US army - the army has authority recognised by the US government and law - soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal- even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages - the legitimacy explanation is able to give reasons what destructive obedience is committed

Answer 36

Can't explain all disobedience: - Rank and Jacobson - most nurses still disobedient despite working in rigidly hierarchical structure - also, significant minority of Milgrams study disobeyed despite recognising experimenters legitimate scientific authority - suggests that some people might just be more or less obedient than others- possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater impact on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure Alternative explanations more effective: - Gradual commitment (also known as 'foot in the door technique') suggests that once people obey to a trivial, seemingly harmless request, then they find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious escalating requests - therefor, we can't assume that having a legitimate authority figure is the only reason people obey Legitimate authority may be used to justify harming others: - when directed by a legitimate authority figure to engage in immoral actions, people are willing to do so and this can happen regardless of how destructive the orders called for are - this implies that when people authorise another person to make judgements for them about appropriate conduct, they no longer feel that their own moral values are relevant to that conduct

Answer 37

Adorno et al (1950)- prompted by anti Semitism in WWII

Answer 38

The authoritarian personality

Answer 39

- extreme respect for/submissiveness to authority - view society as 'weaker' than it once was, and so feel need for powerful leaders to enforce traditional values e.g. love and country - more likely to obey orders from source of authority - inflexible outlook on the world- rigid in opinions and beliefs- no grey areas - everything is either right or wrong- uncomfortable with uncertainty - more likely to view minority groups as 'other'- can be hostile to those with inferior status- can blame minorities for all the 'ills' of society - minorities convenient targets for authoritarians who are obeying destructive orders from those in positions of authority- e.g. Nazi Germany

Answer 40

- Adorno- forms in childhood, mostly as result of harsh parenting - typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticisms of pericieved failings - conditional love from parents - Adorno argues these childhood experiences create resentment and and hostility in a child, but cant express these feelings directly to a parent in fear of punishment so fears are displaced on those they perceive to be weaker- scapegoating- psychodynamic explanation

Answer 41

- more than 2000 middle-class white American's - potential for fascism scale (F-scale)- used to measure authoritarian personality (e.g. obedience and respect for authority are the 2 most important virtues for children to learn') - studied unconscious a attitudes to other ethnic groups

Answer 42

- people with authoritarian leanings (scored higher on F-scale) identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the weak - very conscious of status and showed extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status- these traits are the basis of obedience - had certain cognitive style- no 'fuzziness' between categories of people (black and white thinking)- had fixed stereotypes about other groups - strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

Answer 43

Elms and Milgram

Answer 44

- follow up to Milgrams original obedience study - 20 'obedient' PP's (gave 450 V) and 20 defiant PP's who refused to continue at some point - All PP's completed MMPI scale (measuring range of personality variables) and the Californian F scale to specifically measure authoritarianism - also asked a series of open questions about their relationships wth their parents during school and their attitudes to the teacher and learner in the original study

Answer 45

- higher levels of authoritarianism in PPs who has been classed as obedient than defiant - obedient PPs reported having less close relationships with their fathers during childhood - saw the authority figure in the study clearly more admirable, and the learner less so - not the case in defiant PPs

Answer 46

Research support: - Dambrun & Vatine (2010) using an immersive virtual environment. - They demonstrated that there was a clear correlation between participants’ RWA score and maximum voltage shock administered to the victim - Those with the highest RWA obeyed the most

Answer 47

Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience: - Those who are less educated are consistently more obedient than those with higher levels of education - suggests that instead of authoritarianism causing obedience, lack of education may be responsible for both obedience and authoritarianism Social context more important: - Milgram still maintains that social context may explain obedience better than disposition - based on his many studies where the social context was varied (proximity to victim, location and presence of disobedient peers) Not all obedient PPs showed all the features of an authoritarian personality: - Not all had difficult relationships with father - generally didn't glorify father - didn't experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood - didn't have particularly hostile attitudes towards mothers - suggests complex link between obedience and authoritarianism- the obedient PPs were so unlike authoritarians in so many ways that authoritarianism is unlikely to be a useful predictor of authority

Answer 48

Research evidence to support: - Elms and Milgram (as per previous cards) - COUNTER- differences in PPs as on weaknesses of E&M card - Dambrun and Vatine (see strengths of E&M)

Answer 49

Limited explanation: - authoritarianism can't be used to explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population - for example, in pre-war Nazi Germany, millions of induviduals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour - this was despite fact they must have differed in their personalities in many ways - seems extremely unlikely that they could all possess authoritarian personality (all caused by similar factors) - alternative explanation- social identity theory- could be that majority of German people identified with anti-semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews - means Adorno's explanation is limited as there is a much more realistic alternative explanation Political bias: - F scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology - Christie and Jahoda- argued F-scale is politically based interpretation of authoritarian personality - point out reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism - extreme left and right wing ideologies have a lot in common e.g both emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority - means Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience across the whole political spectrum F-scale provides flawed evidence: - Greenstein (1969)- calls the F-scale a 'comedy of methodological errors' as it is a severely flawed scale - Acquiescence bias (bias to agree)-- possible to get high score from just selecting agree answers - Response bias- demand characteristics- in interview, PPs may know what survey was asking for - interviewer bias- Adorno may have been looking for certain childhood events t match his theory- may have influenced answers given

Answer 50

- Social support | - Locus of controll

Answer 51

- The presence of people who resist pressures to conform/obey can help others to do the same - these people act as model to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

Answer 52

- Asch- the person not conforming didn't have to be giving the right answer- they just had to be disagreeing with the majority- allowed the participant to follow their own conscience and answer as they wished - Their dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows the majority is no longer unanimous - The research found that if the confederate dissenter started to conform again the participant also conformed- social support must be continuous and long lasting

Answer 53

- In one of Milgrams variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was joined by a disobedient confederate - having a model allows PP to follow own conscience- even if not just copying him - the disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure- makes it easier for others to disobey

Answer 54

Rotter (1966)

Answer 55

Dispisitional explanation as personality- Refers to the extent that people believe they have control over the events that happen in their own life- there is a LOC continuum- not just either internal or external LOC- high internal and high external at either ends of spectrum- low of both lie in-between

Answer 56

- believe what happens to them is largely down to own behaviour - hold belief that one can control much of one's life and succeed in dissficult and stressful situations as they can control these events - more likely to be independent - active seekers of information that is useful to them- less likely to rely on the opinions of others - feel that they control their own lives so they don't need to be influenced by others - less likely to conform and obey

Answer 57

- believe that what happens to them is largely controlled y external factors - jold the belief that things are largely uncontrollable and that luck or fate are important factors - less likely to be independent- rely on instructions from other peiple- more likely to rely on the opinions of others - fee they don't control their own lives so need information from others - more likely to conform and obey

Answer 58

Avtgis (1998)- research support: - meta-analysis of studies- considered both LOC and conformity - found those who scored higher on external LOC were more easily persuaded and likely to conform that those with higher internal LOC - average correlation was 0.37 - suggest significantly higher conformity in external than internal- supports idea that LOC can explain induvidal's independent behaviour - SEE COUNTER ON WEAKNESSES OF LOC Elms and Milgram- supporting: - found dissobedient PPs had higher internal LOC than those who obeyed - suggests the personality trait impacted on their decision to resist pressure to obey Oliner and Oliner- supporting research: - interviewed groups of 2 non-jewish people who lived through the Holocaust in Nazi Germany - compared 406 who HAD rescued Jews to 126 who didn't - found that rescuers had a higher internal LOC- suggests it is a facto that helps people resist pressures to obey authority - SEE COUNTER ON WEAKNESSES OF LOC Holland- supporting research: - repeated Milgrams baseline study and measured whether PPs were internals or externals - found 37% of internals didn't continue to highest shock levels (showed some resistance), whereas only 23% of internals didn't continue- inetrnals showed greater resistance - shows resistance is at least partly related to LOC- increases explanations validity Practical application: - if we know who has which type of LOC, we could use these to assign people to jobs - e.g. if you have a high external LOC, you might be a good soldier but a poor nurse as soldiers need to follow orders unquestionably in wartime for the safety of colleagues but nurses should always question a doctors order of they don't think it is correct for the safety of the patient) - COUNTER- could result in social controll- removes free will in society and is therefore not beneficial

Answer 59

Issues wit Atgis' reserach: - used correlational method to analyse the results - hard to see which factor caused the other- can't be sure that internal LOC caused non-conformity or if it was other way round/something else - means results of study may not be true representation of link between LOC and conformity Issues with Oliner and Oliner: - lack of control - real life situation- no control of extraneous variables - e.g. situational factors likely to be important - people may have rebelled more if they had social support or disobedient model- this wasn't measured - difficult to establish cause and effect between LOC and independent behaviour- other variables may have caused the behaviour Contradictory research: - `Twenge et al - analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 year period - data showed that over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external- surprising outcome - if resistance is linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal - suggests the LOC is not a valid explanation for how people resist social influence Limited role of LOC: - Many studies have shown having high internal LOC is linked with being able to resist social influence - however, Rotter (1982) points out LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence - LOC's role depends on teh situation - a persons LOC significantly affects behaviour in new situations - if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so again in that situation whether you have high inetrnal/external LOC

Answer 60

Real-world research support/ application: - Albrecht et al - evaluated teen fresh start USA- 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke - social support was provided by slightly older mentor or 'buddy' - and the end, adolescents who had a 'buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of PPs with no buddy - shows social support can help young people as part of an intervention in the real world Research support for dissenting peers (obedience) : - Gamson et al - PPs told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign - researchers found higher levels of resistance in his study than milgram did in his - probably because PPs were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do - 29 out of 33 (88%) of groups disobeyed - shows how peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure - COUUNTER- could just be that PPs didn't like big oil companies trying to put other companies out of business Further research support: - Mullen - found PPs more likely to break the law and jay-walk when it was demonstrated by disobedient models - support SS as explanation for SI as it is an every day example of how we will break the law if we see others doing so- we have social support to do whatever we want rather than feeling we have to obey laws we may not really agree with

Answer 61

Limited explanation: - Allen and Levine - Asch type task - found when dissenting confederate had seemingly good eyesight, 64% of confederates refused to conform- only 3% when no one- supports - however, when had glasses with thick lenses (appeared to have bad eyesight) resistance was only 36%- social support not always equally effective- could also be element of legitimacy Timing of social support: - Asch found SS in the form of dissent must be given early in process - if a dissenter answers correctly from start of study then conformity drops from 32% to 5.5% whereas if teh confederate starts to dissent later then conformity only drops to 8.5% - suggests that social support alone isn't a sufficient explanation- may also be dependent on when SS is given and if it is consistent Non-consistent application (??- weak point) - in real life, even if someone dissent, this doesn't mean you'll do what they do - if people around you droplitter but you feel strongly that this is wrong, you wont do it- it can often be a matter of free-will

Answer 62

- when the minority influences the belief of the majority - most likely to lead to internalisation - conversion to different minority viewpoint- the more people who convert, the faster the rate of conversion- the snowball effect - gradually the minority become the majority- change occurs - not conformity as not majority

Answer 63

- Consistency - Commitment - Flexibility

Answer 64

- minority must be consistent in their views - increases the amount of interest from others - consistency can ake form of agreement between people (synchronic consistency) or consistency over time (diachronic consistency) - consistency makes people start to reconsider their own views RESEARCH SUPPORT - Wood et al (1994)- meta-anaysis of 97 studies - found those minorities perceived as being most consistent in expressing their position were the most influential - also supported by Moscovici (1969)

Answer 65

- minority must be committed to their cause - could use extreme activities which show commitment- the augmentation principle - also allows confidence in the face of a hostile majority - more likely to take them seriously

Answer 66

- someone who is extremely consistent may seem rigid, unbending and dogmatic- unlikely to gain converts to the minority - cant be too willing to compromise though- then will seem inconsistent- need balance between consistency and flexibility - accept reasonable counterarguments RESEARCH SUPPORT: - Nemeth et al (1987) - stimulated jury situation - when the confederate put forward an alternative point of view had no effect on the majority - when compromised and showed some shift to the majority they had a greater influence- but only happened when shifted late in negotiations rather than early on (perceived as 'caving in')- shows acting out of goodness not self interest

Answer 67

Moscovici (1969)

Answer 68

Aim: - to compare the effect of s consistent and inconsistent minority on influencing PPs to give an incorrect answer on a colour perception task procedure: - only females (no colour blind) - asked to describe colour of 36 slides - 6 PPS- including 2 confederates - slides all blue but varying brightness - consistent condition- 2 confederates called all slides green - inconsistent - called 12 bue and rest green - measured percentage of PPs who called slide green Findings: - consistent- PPs called slides green 8.42% of time, 32% at least once - inconsitent- called green 1.25% of the time

Answer 69

research support: - Moscovoci- high controll as lab, eyesight tested- cause and effect can be established- high internal validity od support for consistency - Nemeth- also lab- high control - Wood et al- Minority can have impact- meta-analysis- provides reliability - Martin et al- presented message supporting particular viewpoint- measured PPs agreement- one group heard minority agree and another heard majority agree- PPs then exposed to conflicting view- less willing to change views if they had listened to minority views- minority message more deeply processed and more enduring effect Practical application: - minority influence can bring about social change - e.g. suffragettes - evidence of psychology at work in everyday life

Answer 70

Research limitations: - Moscovici- lab- lacks ecological validity and mundane realism- also know part of experiment- hard to generalise to real life- low external validity as not how minority influence worse in real life - Martin et al- clear distinction between minority and majority- in real life its more complex, different levels of social power and hostility- not seen in research where minority is just smallest group- hard to generalise to real life situations Opposing theory: - Turner (1991) - suggests people generally move towards members of their 'in-group' (those who are similar to them) and move away from theri 'out-group' - as well as flexibility commitment and consistency we may also need to feel some kind of membership with the minority in order for it to make an influence Limited impact: - Moscovici- only 8% with consistent minority- minority influence is quite rare- not useful concept- more influenced when wrote answers down, suggests more complex relationship- different private and public view - Real-life example- Tony Benn in about minority used classic Moscovici influence strategies but majority members (Neil Kinnock) showed no movement to minority view - shows minority influence cant always bring about social change- sometimes majority will hold viewpoint

Answer 71

- occurs when a society as a whole adopts a new belief/way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the 'norm' - often the result of a minority challenging the majority view and is eventually accepted as the majority view - takes time for the minority to become the majority and bring about social change - minority influence- form of SI in which a minority persuades others into adopting their views/beliefs, attitudes or behaviours- leads to internalisation of views in which private attitudes are changed as well as as public behaviours

Answer 72

- Martin Luther King- In 1995. Rosa Parks arrested for not giving up seat on bus- MLK led bus boycott- civil rights campaign- eventually led to more equality/ less racial prejudice- Barac Obama first black president - Sir Rchard Doll- Smoking used to be glamorous- published first link between smoking and lung cancer- in 2007, UK banned smoking in public places- since Doll's publishing, no. of people smoking dropped from 80- 26% - Charles Darwin- evolution idas in stark contrast yo majority view that man was created by God- widely unacceoted at time in 1859, however now majority believe in theory of evolution - The Sufragettes- campaigned for women rights to vote- carried out protests and often arrested- in 1928, women over 21 could vote and in 1970 the equal pay act was introduced - Gay rights movement- gay marriage not made legal till 2013- marches in 2012

Answer 73

Latane- the amount of influence depends on: 1) strength- power or social status 2) immediacy- physical or psychological distance 3) Number of sources- number of people in group exerting the social influence

Answer 74

- drawing attention through social proof - consistency/ flexibility/ commitment - deeper processing - the augmentation principle - snowball effect - social cryptomnesia

Answer 75

- provide social proof of a problem - civil rights marches- Gay rights march in 2012 - American Black civil rights marches- attention to segregation - draws attention- provides social proof

Answer 76

- consistency- civil rights in America/gay rights- message/intent remained consistent- millions of people took part in protests - flexibility- initially gay right movement accepted civil partnerships in lieu of marriage in 2005- seen as flexible - commitment- gay people remained committed to achieving rights regardless of prejudice shown towards them in numerous hate crimes

Answer 77

- activism makes many people who had simply accepted status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of systematic racism/homophobia

Answer 78

- induviduals in civil rights movements risked lives several times - e.g. freedom riders- mixed ethnic groups who boarded busses in the south challenging transport segregation- many physically beaten - personal risk indicates strong sense of belief and reinforces (augments) their message

Answer 79

- as ideas of minority began to take effect, members of the majority slowly move towards the minority - minority gradually grows in size and picks up momentum more and more till social change occurs - e.g. gay marriage allowed from 2014, US civil rights act in 1964 prohibited discrimination

Answer 80

- when social change has occurred in society and attitude has become an integral part of societies culture, the source of the minority influence is often forgotten - people know that change has occurred but don't know how it happened - younger generations according to research are more accepting of gay marriage - some have no memory of the American civil rights movement many don't remember women (suffragettes) dying/protesting to give women the vote- very few think of suffragettes while voting

Answer 81

- majority can bring about social change through normative/information SI- people either want to do what everyone else is doing because they want to be the same as others it think everyone else is right- conformity - Asch- when one confederate gave right answer this stopped the power of the majority- conformity dropped - use normative social influence- e.g. environmental campaigns saying 'bin it-others do' to prevent litter or saying most young people don't smoke - social changed encouraged to drawing attention to what the majority is actually doing

Answer 82

- dictators such as Hitler can bring about change through power and obedience- Nazi soldiers were agents of Hitler (Milgram's agency theory)- therefore obeyed orders without taking responsibility for own behaviour - Milgram also showed that a disobedient model caused obedience levels to drop to 10% - Zimbardo- suggested obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment- once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes harder to resist a bigger instruction- known as the 'foot in the door technique'

Answer 83

Bashir Et al : - investigated why people often resist social change even when they agree its necessary - found people don't behave in environmentally friendly way as they don't want to be associated with 'tree huggers' - minorities should avoid behaving in ways that reinforce stereotypes because this is off-putting to the majority they are trying to influence

Answer 84

Research evidence to support normative influences: - Nolan et al - hung messages on front doors of houses in San Diego every week for a month - key message that most residents trying to reduce energy usage - controll- signs just saying to save energy but no reference to others behaviour - significant decreases in energy in first group to control Minority influence explains change: - Nemeth - claims social change is due to type of thinking minority inspires - when people consider minoity arguments, they engage in divergent thinking- broad rather than narrow, thinker actively searches for information and 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 and open minds in a way majorities cant Seen in real life: - many examples of minority influence achieving social change - the suffragettes - the African-Amerian civil rights movement - the gay rights movement - Darwin - strengths as evidence of psychology at work in every day life

Answer 85

Weaknesses of studies supporting explanations: - asch, Milgram, moscovici- weaknesses in methodology (e.g. lack of ecological validity) - raises doubts of validity of explanations- if methodology isn't valid, findings may not be applicable to real life Deeper processing may not play role: - Mackie - presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you don't share their views - because we like to believe others share our views and think in the same way as us - when we find out majority believes something different, we are forced to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning - means central element of minority influence has been challenged- casts doubt on validity as explanation for social change Counter evidence to normative influence in social change: - Foxcroft et al - reviewed social interventions as part of the 'gold standard' Cochrane collaboration - reviewed 70 studies where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use - researchers found only small reduction in drinking quantity and no reduction in drinking frequency - seems normative influence doesn't always produce long term social change Social change happens slowly and sometimes not at all: - Nemeth - argues effects of minority influence are likely to be incorrect and delayed - weakness as it shows minorty influence effects are fragile and may be limited - e.g. smoking banned in public places in 2007 but was this due to social influence or more scientific evidence about lung cancer and need to attempt to save NHS Barriers to social change: - Bashir- see previous card (people dot want to be associated with certain groups) - suggests people want to be liked by their in-group as social identity theory suggests- may be stronger than desire to support a minority who they believe are right but are the out group

Social influence Flashcards

(109 cards)