Social influence

Question 1

Agentic shift definition

Answer 1

• Shift from an ‘autonomous’ state (taking responsibility for their own actions) to ‘agentic’ (where they act as an ‘agent’ for another person).
• Attribute responsibility for their actions to the authority figure.

Question 2

Asch line study + findings (3)

Answer 2

• Given unambiguous line length test.
• 7-9 group - Out of 18 trials, confederates gave wrong answer 12 times
• 32% conformity, 75% conformed at least once

Question 3

Variables affecting conformity (3)

Answer 3

1. Group size - only 3% conformity with one Asch confederate
2. Unanimity - If one confederate gave correct response, conformity dropped to 5.5%
3. Task difficulty - as task got harder, conformity increased (ISI)

Question 4

Asch evaluation points (3)

Answer 4

1. Participants may have not been convinced by the confederates (demand characteristics)
2. Sample issue (50 US male students)
3. Lack of mundane realism

Question 5

Zimbardo prison study (5 points)

Answer 5

• 21 male students chosen from the newspaper advert
• Prisoners were arrested at homes, stripped, deloused, and given prison uniforms.
• Guards given sunglasses, uniforms, told not to physically harm the prisoners.
• After day 2, prisoners revolted against the guards
• After day 6, the experiment was cancelled

Question 6

Zimbardo evaluation (2 strengths)

Answer 6

• Practical application to code of ethics/prisoner treatment
• High internal validity/mundane realism

Question 7

Zimbardo criticisms (3)

Answer 7

• Unreliable: not all guards behaved with equal aggression, not fully supporting the situational hypothesis
• Unethical: psychological harm to participants
• Lack of objectivity

Question 8

Milgram shock experiment (3)

Answer 8

• 40 male particpants
• Participants told to deliver shocks by professor in a lab coat (15-450v)
• If the participant resisted, the professor would urge them to continue

Question 9

Milgram results (2)

Answer 9

• 12.5% stopped at 300 volts
• 65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts

Question 10

Milgram evaluation (2 positives)

Answer 10

• Highly controlled experiment
• Supported by Hofling’s 1966 nurses study, 21/22 admitted dose)

Question 11

Milgram criticisms (2)

Answer 11

• Possible lack of mundane realism, participants may have acted their anxiety because they figured out the situation was not real
• Unethical - 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures

Question 12

Sheridan and King (1972)

Answer 12

Real shocks given to a puppy.
- 54% of males gave fatal shocks
- 100% of females gave fatal shocks.

Question 13

Situational variables affecting obedience (5)

Answer 13

1. Proximity same room: 40% conformity
2. Touch proximity: 30%
3. Location: 47.5%
4. Remote instruction: 20.5%
5. No uniform: 20%

Question 14

Hofling et al (1966) - nurses study

Answer 14

• Legitimate authority - 21/22 nurses obeyed an unknown ‘Doctor Smith’ because they were conditioned to do so

Question 15

Authoritarian personality traits (4)

Answer 15

• High score on F-scale
• High respect for upper classes
• Reject people who violate conventional values
• More obedient in the Milgram experiment

Question 16

Legitimacy of authority definition

Answer 16

• We obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.
• Justified by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.

Question 17

Legitimacy of authority evaluation points

1 positive and two negative

Answer 17

• My Lai massacre supports theory
• Obdience may be dispostional (F-scale)
• Cannot account for disobdience

Question 18

Authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience evaluation (2 positives)

Answer 18

• Zilmer (1995) found 16 Nazi war criminals scored highly on the F scale
• Milgram’s obedient participants scored highly on the F scale

Question 19

Authoritarian personality evaluation (downsides)

Answer 19

• No cause and effect, lack of internal validity
• Uses self report, subject to social desirability bias

Question 20

Locus of control definition

Answer 20

A belief about the amount of control a person has over situations in their life.

Question 21

Holland (1967) - Locus of control and Milgram (3)

Answer 21

• Repeated Milgram’s study, but measured the LOC of the participants.
• 37% of people with high internal LOC disobeyed
• 23% of externals disobeyed.

Question 22

Locus of control evaluation criticisms (2)

Answer 22

• LOC is measured using questionnaires = demand characteristics,
• Other explanations (social support)

Question 23

Minority Consistency types (2)

Answer 23

Synchronic - all members of the minority say the same thing
Diachronic - same message over time

Question 24

Commitment (augmentation principle) definition

Answer 24

If a minority is willing to suffer for their views, they are taken more seriously (augmentation principle)

Question 25

Flexibility definition

Answer 25

Being non-dogmatic, and being able to compromise increases likelihood of influence

Question 26

Moscovici (1969) - blue slide study

Answer 26

- Shown 36 clearly blue slides - Consistent minority called all slides green - Inconsistent minority called 2/3 slides green | There were two confederates in the minority

Question 27

Moscovici findings

Answer 27

- Consistent confederates - 8% of participants said the slides were green - Inconsistent - 1% of participants said the slides were green.

Question 28

Moscovici evaluation points (3)

Answer 28

- Supports consitency principle - Lacks mundane realism - Female only sample

Question 29

Nemeth (1987) - ski lift study

Answer 29

When minority was inflexible, the majority were less likely to change amount of compensation in ski lift accident, and vice versa when flexible.