Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AQA: Psychology Paper 1 > Social Influence > Flashcards

Social Influence Flashcards

1
Q

Agentic state [2]:

A
  • Person sees themselves as an agent carrying out another’s wishes
  • e.g a nurse for a doctor
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Why do ppl adopt the agentic state? [3]:

A
  • To maintain a positive self-image
  • Actions carried out under agentic state are not the ppt’s responsibility so doesn’t reflect on their self-image
  • Their actions under agentic state are guilt-free
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Binding factors to the agentic state [3]:

A
  • To break off the experiment ppt must breech commitment made to the researcher
  • Ppt fears that they will appear arrogant & rude & that behaviour has consequences
  • Fear helps bind ppt to obedience
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Legitimate authority [definition]:

A

A person who appears to be in social control of the situation

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

What is needed for a person to shift into the agentic state?

A

A legitimate authority

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

Milgram (1974)- legitimacy of authority [2]:

A
  • There’s a shared expectation among ppl that many situations have a socially controlling figure
  • so legitimate authority stems from the expectation that someone will b in charge not their individual character
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Definitions of the situation [3]:

A
  • There’s a tendency for ppl to accept definitions of a situation if presented by a legitimate authority
  • Altho it is the ppt doing the shit they allow the authority figure to define what that means
  • e.g researcher orders ppt to continue zappin which reassures the ppt that the person is not in pain despite the obvious pain on their face
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Institution [3]:

A
  • Legitimate authority requires an institution
  • If an authority’s commands are potentially harmful or destructive they need an institution to back em so that they look legit e.g university, military
  • Milgram’s findings = don’t have to be v reputable or distinguished institution
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Agentic state evaluation- Sadism [4]:

A
  • Sum ppl believe that ppt had signs of cruelty and they used the situation to express their impulses
  • Zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment
  • In just a few days, the guards inflicted rapid cruelty in the increasingly submissive inmates even tho no one asked
  • Shows some obedience may be just cus of sadism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Agentic state evaluation- Shifting [4]:

A
  • Milgram claims that ppl shift back & forth from agentic & autonomous states
  • Lifton (1986)
  • Found that drs were gradually & irreversibly changing from ppl who wanted to help ppl into ppl capable of carrying out vile/lethal experiments on helpless prisoners
  • Suggests its irreversible not back and forth
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Agentic state evaluation- Loss of control [4]:

A
  • Fennis & Aarts (2012) claim
  • agentic shift is more likely where personal control is lost
  • Under these circumstances ppl show an increased obedience to authority and bystander apathy
  • so agentic shift is not only obedience but can be low locus of internal control so its incomplete
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Agentic state evaluation- support for legitimate authority power [4]:

A

+ Tarnow (2000)
+ Made a review of all serious aircraft incidents between 1978- 1990 with flight voice recorder where crew were partly responsible for crash
+ Found excessive dependence on Cptn’s authority and expertise
+ 19/37 accidents provide real-life support for power of legitimate authority

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

What are the situational factors affecting obedience? [3]:

A
  • Proximity
  • Location
  • Uniform
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Milgram (1963) procedure [5]:

A
  • 40 ppts
  • 2 confederates; researcher & 47 yo man acting as a volunteer
  • The two ppts drew lots to see who would be the teacher & learner, it was rigged so fake ppt was always learner
  • Teacher had to test learner’s ability to remember word pairs, student was in another room giving mainly false ans
  • every time they got sumn wrong teacher had to administer an increasingly strong electric shock (max 450v/ going up by 15v)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Fake learner shock endurance- milgram [3]:

A
  • Fake learner received shocks in silence until they reached 300 volts
  • At 300+v learner pounded on wall and gave no response to questions
  • If ‘teacher’ asked to stop researcher would say shit like ‘it is absolutely essential that u continue’ or ‘u have no other choice, u must go on’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Milgram (1963) findings [4]:

A
  • Milgram asked psych students to predict results b4 study = they thought no one would go over 150v
  • They also predicted only 1 in 1000 would get to 450v
  • ACC 26/40 (65%) got to the full 450volts despite it being labelled ‘danger: sever shock’ at 420v
  • All ppt went over 300v only 5 stopped at 300v where learner 1st objects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Milgram- Proximity [3]:

A
  • Teacher & learner in same room = obedience levels fell to 40%
  • In extreme variation ppt had to force learners hand on shock plate which decreased obedience to 30%
  • Obedience decreased to 21% when ppt given instruction over the phone (proximity to rsrcher matters)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Milgram- Location [4]:

A
  • Study conducted at yale uni
  • ppt remarked that location gave em confidence in the integrity of the rsrchrs
  • Study in rundown office = obedience decreased
  • Only 48% ppt delivered max 450v shock
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

The power of uniform on obedience [3]:

A
  • Bushman (1988)
  • Female researcher dressed as a policeman, business executive or beggar,
  • and stopped ppl in the street telling them to give change to a male rsrchr for parking meter
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Power of uniform stats- bushman [3]:

A
  • 72% of ppl obeyed to police uniform
  • 48% for business executive
  • 52% for beggar
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Milgram obedience research ao3- Temporal validity [4]:

A

+ His researcher has shown temporal validity
+ Burger (2009)
+ Found almost identical levels of obedience 46 yrs later
+ Shows his theory withstands test of time

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

Milgram obedience research ao3- they knew bruh [4]:

A
  • Perry (2012)
  • discovered that many of Milgram’s ppts doubted that the shocks were real
  • Milgram’s research assistant Murata split ppts into doubters & believers & found latter group more likely to disobey
  • challenges validity & suggests that when faced real consequences ppl more likely to disobey
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Milgram obedience research ao3- Research support [4]:

A

+ Durkin & Jeffery (2000)
+ They asked 5-9yos to identify who was able to make an arrest
+ Kids picked person currently wearing uniform but isn’t acc an officer
+ Suggests kids’ initial on authority are abt appearance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Milgram obedience research ao3- Ethical issues [4]:

A
  • Ppt didn’t feel like they had the right to withdraw
  • this cus researcher would say shit like
  • ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’ & ‘You have no other choice u must go on’
  • This makes study less reliable as he compromised on ethics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Authoritarian personality [definition]:

A

Ppl who have strong adherence to conventional values & believe in absolute obedience/ submission to authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is the F scale? [3]:

A
  • Made in California 1947
  • ‘Fascism scale’
  • A measure of authoritarian traits/ tendencies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Adorno et al (1950) [4]:

A
  • Used F-scale to c what makes authoritarian personality
  • ‘rules r there for ppl to follow not change’ ‘obedience & rspct 4 authrity r the most important values for child to follow’
  • Ppl who tended to agree had authoritarian personality
  • Ppl who scored high on f tended to be raised by prnts w/ authoritarian parenting style
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What are some characteristics of the authoritarian personality according to Adorno [3]:

A
  • rigid thinkers who obey authority
  • See world as black & white
  • enforce strict adherence to social rules & hierarchies
29
Q

How do children acquire authoritarian personalities? [2]:

A
  • Grow up in authoritarian family w/ emphasis on obedience
  • acquire authoritarian attitudes thru process of learning
    & imitation
30
Q

Right-wing authoritarianism [5]:

A
  • Altemeyer (1981)
  • High RWA ppl possess 3 characteristics
  • Conventionalism
  • Authoritarian Aggression
  • Authoritarian Submission
31
Q

Conventionalism [explanation]:

A

Adherence to conventional norms and values like having children

32
Q

Altemeyer (1981) [5]:

A
  • Ppt ordered to give themselves increasing lvl of shocks when they messed up on learning task
  • NO significant correlation between RWA & lvl of shocks
  • Also large red button labelled ‘do not push this button unless u are instructed to do so’
  • At end of experiment ppts ordered to push button to give emselves an extra shock for ‘not trying’
  • Participant’s lvl of RWA lowkey irrelevant cus most ppt did it
33
Q

Elms & Milgram (1996)- Procedure [5]:

A
  • Used ppts from Milgram’s study 2 months ago
  • Selected 20 obedient ppts & 20 defiant ppts
  • Each ppt completed the MMPI-scale & F-scale
  • Ppts also asked abt their relationship w/ their parents during childhood
  • & their attitude towards ‘teacher’ & ‘learner’ from b4
34
Q

Elms & Milgram (1996)- Findings [4]:

A
  • Lil difference between obedient & defiant ppt on MMPI
  • Higher lvls of authoritarianism among obedient ppts
  • Obedient ppts reported being less close with their dads
  • Obedient ppts saw researcher as more admirable & learner less so.
  • This wasn’t the case for defiant ppts
35
Q

Authoritarian personality ao3- Education [3]:

A
  • Middendorp & Meloen found that ppl who r less educated r consistently more authoritarian than more educated ppl
  • Milgram also found that less-educated ppts were more obedient
  • Lack of education may be what’s acc causing obedience, not authoritarianism
36
Q

Authoritarian personality ao3- Research support [4]:

A

+ Ppl were sus abt whether ppts believed shocks were real
+ Dambrun & Vantine overcame this by using ‘immersive virtual environment’
+ Ppts watched actor on screen & were informed victim screams not real
+ Despite this ppts still responded like it was real/ clear correlation between RWA & obedience

37
Q

Authoritarian personality ao3- Diff between authoritarian & obedient [3]:

A
  • Elm’s & Milgram’s research presented important diff in characteristics of obedient pts & authoritarian pts
  • e.g when asked abt their upbringing, fully obedient ppts reported v good relationship w/ parents rather than strict environment that would cause authoritarian
  • Suggests authoritarianism ain’t really the cause
38
Q

Authoritarian personality ao3- Left-wing [4]:

A

+ If rightwing obedient then leftwing should be more disobedient
+ Begue et al (2014)
+ Replicated milgram’s study as fake game show
+ the lefter they are the lower the shocks they gave

39
Q

What are the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence?

A
  • Social support

- Locus’ of control

40
Q

Social support [definition]:

A

The perception that an individual has assistance from other ppl & that they r part of a supportive network

41
Q

Social support on resisting conformity [4]:

A
  • Asch (1956)= social support enables ppl to resist conformity pressure
  • In a variation of his study social support of an ally reduced conformity from 33% to 5.5%
  • It breaks the unanimous position of the majority
  • doing this raises possibility that there are other legitimate ways of responding
42
Q

What was the percentage reduction when an ally was added to Asch’s study?

A

From 33% to 5.5% conformity

43
Q

Social support on resisting obedience [3]:

A
  • It is hard to stand against authority cus obedience of others makes even sumn evil seem acceptable
  • Research shows that individuals more confident in ability to disobey if they have an ally
  • Disobedient peers act as role models
44
Q

Social support on resisting obedience- Milgram [3]:

A
  • Variation where ppt in teams of 3 with 2 confederates
  • Confederates continued to refuse shocking learner
  • Only 10% of ppts continued to max shock 450v
45
Q

Locus of control [explanation]:

A

Refers to person’s perception of control of their own behaviour

46
Q

External locus of control =

A

Believe what happens to them is due to external factors/ forces e.g others or luck

47
Q

Internal locus of control =

A

Believe We control events in our life. What happens to u is a result of ur own ability & effort

48
Q

Characteristics of External locus of control [4]:

A
  • Tend to approach events with passive/ fatalistic attitude
  • Take less personal responsibility for their behaviour
  • Less likely to display independence
  • More likely to accept influence of others
49
Q

Characteristics of Internal Locus of control [3]:

A
  • More likely to display independence in thought & behaviour
  • Rely less on opinions of others
  • so better able to resist social influence
50
Q

Spector 1982 =

A

High internals tend to be more achievement-oriented so more likely to become leaders

51
Q

Hutchins & Estey 1978 =

A

High internals r better able to resist coercion from interrogator in simulated war camp

52
Q

Social support ao3- Research support [3]:

A

+ Rees & Wallace (2015)
+ Teens with a majority of friends who drink alcohol r significantly more likely to binge drink
+ Suggests social support help break laws lmao

53
Q

Social support ao3- In real life [4]:

A

+ The Rosenstrasse protest is an example of milgram’s theories irl
+ 1943 a group of german women protested cus Gestapo were holding 2000 Jewish men
+ Despite the Gestapo threatening to open fire they eventually released the men
+ The disobedient peers gave each other courage & confidence even in life-threatening situations

54
Q

Social support ao3- Response order [4]:

A

+ Allen & Levine (1969)
+ Confederate answered 1st giving correct answer then other confederates answered wrong (ppt always 5th)
+ Confederate answered 4th after all wrong answers
+ Ppt more likely to not conform in position 1 cus correct 1st answer confirms ppts judgement

55
Q

Locus of control ao3- Normative influence [4]:

A

+ Spector 1983
+ Measured locus of control & predosposition to normative & informational influence of 157 undergrads
+ Significant correlation btwn externals & normative influence
+ No relationship btwn informational influence & locus of control so it doesn’t work as explanation for info

56
Q

Locus of control ao3- Ppl more external these days [3]:

A
  • Twenge et al (2004)
  • meta-analysis found that young Americans increasingly external
  • Research scores have been increasingly more external btwn 1960-2000
57
Q

Locus of control ao3- Research support [4]:

A

+ Avtgis (1998)
+ meta-analysis on studys abt relation btwn locus of ctrl & types of social influence e.g conformity
+ +ve correlation btwn external/internal & scores on measures of persuasion
+ Externals tended to be persuaded more easily & conform more

58
Q

What are the factors needed to convince a majority? [3]:

A
  • Consistency
  • Commitment
  • Flexibility
59
Q

Minority influence- consistency; explanation

[2]:

A
  • When exposed to minority with diff view, majority assume that minority are in error
  • If consistent approach others/ maj come to reassess sitch & consider issue more carefully
60
Q

Minority influence- consistency; research [4]:

A
  • Wood et al (1994)
  • meta-analysis of 97 minority influence studies
  • minorities perceived as consistent were more influential
  • Moscovici et al
61
Q

Minority influence- Commitment; explanation [4]:

A
  • Difficult to dismiss a minority that adopts an uncompromising & consistent commitment to its position
  • This cus it suggests certainty, confidence & courage in the face of a hostile majority
  • joining minority comes w/ greater consequence than staying w/ maj
  • so commitment may persuade maj members
62
Q

Minority influence- Flexibility [3]:

A
  • Mugny (1982)
  • flexibility is more effective at changing maj opinion than rigid arguments
  • Mugny distinguished btwn flexible 7 rigid minority = rigid
    refuse to compromise at the risk of looking dogmatic
63
Q

Moscovici et al- procedure [5]:

A
  • Moscovici 1969
  • 32 groups; had 4 naive ppts & 2 confederates (minority)
  • Shown a series of blue sides that only varied in intensity & asked to judge their colour
  • consistent trail= feds repeatedly called blue slides green
  • Inconsistent trial= only called slides green 1/3 of the trial
64
Q

Moscovici et al- Control [3]:

A
  • 6 naive ppts
  • no confederates
  • ppts called the slides blue thruout
65
Q

Moscovici et al- findings [3]:

A
  • Consistent minority influenced naive maj to say green over 8% of the trials
  • Inconsistent minority had v lil influence that was barely diff from ctrl group
  • 32% gave the same answer as the minority at least once
66
Q

Minority influence ao3- research support flexibility [4]:

A

+ Nemeth & Brilmayer (1987)
+ Simulated jury sitch- group members discussed compensation amount for victim of ski lift accident
+ When fed put alt pov & refused to compromise it had no effect
+ Fed who did compromise showed sum degree shift in maj

67
Q

Minority influence ao3- Difficulty [4]:

A
  • Even if it does help, convincing majority is still hard - Nemeth
  • Ppl accept principle only on surface but quickly become irritated
  • They may also fear ruining the harmony in the group
  • As a consequence majority views persist
68
Q

Minority influence ao3- helps rethink [3]:

A

+ Nemeth argues minority influence ‘opens the mind’
+ Exposure to minority opinion makes ppl search for info, consider more options & make better decisions
+ This helps to improve majorities decision so its a +ve impact

69
Q

Minority influence ao3- Lab setting [4]:

A
  • Most minority influence studies are lab experiments
  • Ppts in experiment groups aren’t ‘real’ groups, they prolly don’t know each other & task is artificial
  • Lab experiments have low ecological validity
  • Reduces overall validity of findings

AQA: Psychology Paper 1 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions