Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Evaluate the social psychological factors (3-)

Answer 1

_ Evidence Nazi's behaviour can't be explained in terms of LA + agentic state Mandel (1998) - German Rescue Police Battalion 101 Men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in small Polish town despite the fact they had choice to be assigned to other duties if they preferred - no direct orders Their behaviour challenges agentic state explanation - no force has been presented for the shooting by authority

Answer 2

Proximity: Baseline exp, teacher + learner in adjoining rooms - teacher could hear but not see learner. In one variation teacher + learner in same room - obedience dropped from 65% to 40% In another, experimenter gave instructions through telephone - further reduction to 20.5% - pps pretended to give shocks / gave weaker ones than ordered to Uniform: Baseline study experimenter wore grey lab coat as symbol of authority, but in this variation, experimenter seen to be called away + replaced by ‘an ordinary member of the public’ confederate wearing everyday clothing: obedience rates dropped to 20% - lowest of all the conditions. Location: Milgram changed location of study from prestigious university (Yale) to run-down building so experimenter had less authority Obedience fell to 47.5% from original 65% in the baseline exp - obedience still high tho

Answer 3

+ Research support Bickman (1974) - field experiment in New York with three confederates: jacket + tie, security guard, milkman. Instructed to stand in street + ask people to pick up litter / other general tasks. People were twice as likely to obey security guard confederate than jacket and tie Supports Milgram’s conclusion - uniform conveys authority of wearer so this situational factor is likely to produce obedience.

Answer 4

_ Mandel (1998) - impact due to ‘obedience alibi’ Milgram’s findings from variations do support situational explanation for obedience through proximity of researcher, location of study + presence of uniform but Mandel says it offers excuse / ‘alibi’ for evil behaviour. Could be offensive to e.g. survivors of Holocaust to say that Nazis were simply obeying orders + were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control. Major limitation - obedience alibi can have implications on legal system + how we conduct justice for sufferers.

Answer 5

_ Lack of internal validity. Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s study - believed many pps worked out the exp was fake. Primarily due to extra manipulation particularly in variation involving replacement of experimenter with member of public. Milgram himself recognised that situation was contrived so a high chance pps worked out the truth. Serious limitation - unclear whether results of studies are genuinely due to operation of obedience / if pps saw through deception + so acted accordingly.

Answer 6

Susceptible to obeying people in authority + dismissive those inferior to them. Humanistic explanation - parenting styles of strict discipline, impossible high standards + severe criticism at failing in childhood are main cause - all aspects of conditional love. Psychodynamic explanation - backs this, these childhood experiences create hostility in child as, unable to express feelings directly against parents, (due to fear of reprisal), fear is displaced onto those seen as weaker / inferior (scapegoating). Adorno - 2000 middle-class white Americans + test unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. Made several scales including potential for fascism scale / F-scale. Those who scored high on F-scale also identified with ‘strong’ people + were particularly contemptuous of ‘weak’. They showed excessive amount of respect to people of higher status - shows strong correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Answer 7

+ Research support Milgram + Elm (1996) - 20 obedient + 20 defiant pps to take the F-scale. Pps asked open questions about relationship with parents, their childhood + attitudes towards experimenter and learner. Obedient pps obtained higher levels of authoritarianism + relationship with their parents was more negative as well. Most obedient pps had more admiration for experimenter (who held authority) than learner (inferior). Results support authoritarian personality as valid explanation

Answer 8

_ Limited explanation Clear differences between authoritarianism + obedient participants, as many who were fully obedient + went to 450V had positive family experiences rather than harsh upbringing we expect with authoritarian personality. So obedience does not seem to be explained by this personality. Also not everyone with antisemitic views in Nazi Germany had authoritarian personality type as there would be hundreds of variations. Limits authoritarian personality - perhaps other explanations e.g. social identity theory are better to explain obedience.

Answer 9

_ Methodological issues Greenstein found that every question on F-scale was worded in same direction - easy to get high authoritarianism score just by suspecting to acquiescence bias. Jackson (1961) rephrased questions to give opposite meanings - also found evidence of this acquiescence bias: pps were given original + rephrased versions of F-scale - in the end led to a positive correlation. Major limitation - suggests that authoritarian personality could more likely correlate with obedience rather than cause it as initially thought.

Answer 10

Locus of control - refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives Internal LOC: believe they are mainly responsible for what happens to them More likely to resist pressures to conform as take responsibility for actions (good / bad) - more likely to base decisions on own beliefs More self confident, achievement oriented, intelligence External LOC: believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other external forces LOC is continuum - high external / internal at each end + low external / internal in middle

Answer 11

+ Supporting Research Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's exp but measured pps LOC beforehand - knew who was internal / external 37% of internals showed some resistance to give shock compared to 23% of externals Meets our expectations that internals are more likely to resist pressure to conform than externals - provides support for explanation

Answer 12

_ Contradictory research Twinge et al (2004) - meta-analysis: over 40 years people have become more likely to resist pressure to obey So we expect more internal people in world if we accept positive correlation between internal + resistance but this is not true - more externals in world now Explanation does not make sense any more - loses credibility

Answer 13

_ Limited role LOC has most influence in new situations - rest of the time, person's experience of situation / similar one is more important So role of LOC is exaggerated - if person conformed / obeyed in previous situation they are likely to do it again even if they have high internal LOC

Answer 14

Pressure to conform can be reduced if other people don't conform E.g. in Asch’s research opposing figure does not necessarily have to be right, but the fact that someone else is not following majority allows person to be free to follow own conscience - person acts as a model If non-conforming person beings to conform again, so does naïve ppt - effect of dissent not long-lasting. Can also help resist obedience as pressure is reduced if another is disobeying E.g. in one variation of Milgram’s exp rate of obedience fell from 65% to 10% when genuine ppt is joined by disobedient confederate - effects of this mirror that of conformity.

Answer 15

+ Research to support resistance to conformity Findings - conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in Asch-type study + occurred even if dissenter wore thick glasses + said he had difficulty with vision (no position to judge length of lines) Supports view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but also enables someone to be free from group pressures

Answer 16

+ Research to support resistance to obedience Gamson et al (1982) - higher levels of resistance in their study compared to Milgram’s’. Most likely because ppts were in groups who had to produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign. 29 of the 33 groups (88%) of ppts rebelled - peer support linked to greater resistance.

Answer 17

Form of social influence where small group of ppl influence beliefs + behaviours of others - most likely lead to internalisation Consistency: over time consistency in minority view increases amount of interest from others between ppl in minority group (synchronic) and / or over time (diachronic) Commitment: minorities may engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views - risk shows dedication majority pay more attention - augmentation principle Flexibility: Nemeth (1986) - relentless consistency could be counter-productive - seen as unreasonable by majority minority influence more effective if willing to compromise / adapt their POV

Answer 18

+ Supporting evidence Moscovici (1969) - colour slide task blue / green Consistent minority opinion better effect on others (32%) than inconsistent (1.25%) Consistency is major factor in minority influence Wood (1994) supports this with meta-analysis of 100 similar studies

Answer 19

_ Artificial roles Identifying colour of slides is just as artificial as Asch line task - far from minorities trying to change majority behaviour in real life e.g. jury Lacks external validity

Answer 20

+ Research support for internalisation Variation of Moscovici study - pps wrote answers down privately instead of saying them Private agreement with minority greater in these circumstances Majorities views were changing but hesitant to admit this publicly - dont want to be considered radical / weird Supports study

Answer 21

Occurs when society as a whole adopts a new way of behaving which then becomes widely accepted as the norm - often occurs via minority influence Drawing attention: minority brings awareness to their issue by spreading info about cause e.g. civil rights marches in Washington D.C. Consistency: staying consistent with message that minority is advocating for + intent -one message said consistently over time increases amount of interest from majority Deeper processing: begin to rethink their own values + analyse message being said / minority's POV Augmentation principle: minority takes risks to show commitment to cause e.g. Suffragette hunger strikes - allows majority to really consider minority's argument due to their dedication The snowball effect: majority take minority side along with lots of other people, making minority cause into majority cause with all the new support Social cryptomnesia: when social change has occurred + been established for some time so we forget how change happened in the first place

Answer 22

+ Research support for normative influences Schultz et al (2008) - door hanger informing guests of environmental benefits of reusing towels: "75% of guests do actually reuse their towels for day 2" Guests who received message reduced need for fresh towels by 25% - want to be perceived as normal Normative influences can change people's behaviours in positive ways

Answer 23

_ Indirectly effective Nemeth (1986) - majority often only influenced on matters related to issue at hand e.g. creating law to stop smoking in certain areas rather than banning smoking altogether Nemeth also raises the idea that minority influence can have delayed effects that may not be seen for some time e.g. shifting attitudes towards smoking + spreading awareness about how dangerous it is for one’s health. Limitation - effects of minority influence proven to be fragile + lack a valid contribution to social influence as a whole.

Answer 24

_ There are certain barriers before social change can occur Bashir (2013) investigated why people often resist social change even if they agree with cause itself. E.g. many people hesitant to admit publicly they support saving the environment or are feminists - do not want to be associated with negative connotations + stereotypes of agreeing with view. Social change through minority influence takes much longer to effectively be established - limited influence on society.

Social Influence Flashcards

(48 cards)