Social Influence

Question 1

What is internalisation?

Answer 1

A deep type of conformity involving a genuine change of private views to match those of the group

Question 2

What is identification?

Answer 2

A moderate type of conformity involving changing our behaviour and opinions to those of a group because there is something about the group we value, and we want to be a part of it

Question 3

What is compliance?

Answer 3

A superficial/weak type of conformity. Publicly going along or conforming to the group, whilst privately not changing your own behaviour or opinion

Question 4

What is Normative Social Influence (NSI)?

Answer 4

People complying to social norms because they want to be liked/fit in

Question 5

What is Informational Social Influence (ISI)?

Answer 5

We change our behaviour or ideas because we want to be right

Question 6

What was Lucas et al’s supporting evidence for ISI?

Answer 6

Lucas et al (2006) asked students to solve easy or difficult maths problems.

They found greater conformity to incorrect answers when the questions were more difficult

Question 7

What is Asch’s supporting evidence for NSI?

Answer 7

Asch (1951) sampled 123 volunteer male college students. Participants in groups of 6 or 7 were seated at a table and asked to look at 3 lines at different lengths, they all took turns saying which line was the the same length as the ‘standard line’.
One of the participants were a genuine participant, the rest being confederates of the experiment. The real participant always answered 2nd to last, confederates gave unanimous wrong answers on 12/18 of the trials. These were called critical trials.

Question 8

What was the mean average conformity rate on the 12 critical trials of Asch’s experiment (1951)?

Answer 8

33% and 75% conformed at least once

Question 9

What were the three variations of Asch’s study (1951)?

Answer 9

Group size
The unanimity of the majority
The difficulty of the task

Question 10

What were the results of Asch’s variation of group size?

Answer 10

Condition one - 1 participant 1 confederate = 3% conformity rate
Condition two - 1 participant 2 confederates = 13% conformity rate
Condition three - 1 participant 3 confederates = 32% conformity rate

Question 11

What were the results of Asch’s unanimity of the majority variation?

Answer 11

Asch introduced a confederate that would give a different answer.

When the confederate answered correctly the % of conformity dropped from 33 to 5

When the confederate gave a different answer to the other confederates and the real participant, conformity rates were 9%

Question 12

What were the difficulty of the task variation in Asch’s experiment results?

Answer 12

When Asch made the lines closer so that the answer was less obvious the conformity rate increased

Question 13

Who suggested Asch’s experiment was a ‘child of its time’?

Answer 13

Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s study in the UK and got 1/396 conforming response. They called Asch’s experiment a child of its time because a huge cultural change had taken place regarding the importance of conformity since Asch’s research was conducted

Question 14

What were methodological issues with Asch’s experiment?

Answer 14

Demand characteristics could lower internal validity

Lacks mundane realism - the task of identifying lines is trivial and therefore there was no real reason not to conform.

Question 15

What are demand characteristics?

Answer 15

Cues in the environment that may cause the participant to change their behaviour

Question 16

What were the limited applications of findings in Asch’s study

Answer 16

Asch used an all male sample
Other research suggests women might be more conformist (Neto 1955)

Asch also only used people from the USA
Conformity studies conducted in China, where the social group is very important, found much higher conformity rates

Question 17

What was Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment (1973)?

Answer 17

Zimbardo set out to discover if prison guards behaved sadistically due to their personality or if it was the environment. Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford. They selected students that volunteered and were deemed ‘mentally stable’ after extensive psychological testing. The students were randomly assigned the roles of guard or prisoner, to heighten the realism of the study the prisoners were arrested in their homes by local police and delivered to the prison. The social roles of guards and prisoners were strictly divided, the prisoners daily routines were heavily regulated, they had 16 rules to follow which were enforced by guards that worked in shifts. The prisoners names were never, used only their number. The guards had their own uniform, complete with wooden club, handcuffs, keys and mirror shades. They had complete control over prisoners, for instance even deciding when they could go to the toilet

Question 18

What did Zimbardo find from the prison experiment?

Answer 18

After a slow start the guards took up their roles with enthusiasm. Their behaviour grew increasingly tyrannical and abusive towards the prisoners with some appearing to enjoy the power.

The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by enforcing the rules and punishing the smallest misdemeanour

Within 2 days prisoners rebelled by ripping uniforms and swearing at guards

The guards put down the rebellion using fire extinguishers and caused the prisoners to become subdued, depressed and anxious

The study was terminated after 6 days after a postgrad student reminded researchers that it was a psychological study and didn’t justify the abuse being given out to participants

Question 19

What are the ethical issues of Zimbardo’s prison study?

Answer 19

Right to withdraw - one student asked Zimbardo to leave the study, Zimbardo responded to them as a superintendent (instead of a researcher) and persuaded them to remain

Protection from harm - Five prisoners left the experiment early because of adverse reaction to the physical and mental torment, furthermore some guards reported feelings of of anxiety and guilt as a result of their actions

Question 20

How was Zimbardo’s experiment affected by demand characteristics?

Answer 20

Banuazuzi and Movahedi (1975) argued that participants were merely play acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. It seemed their behaviour was a response to a powerful demand characteristics in the experimental characteristics in the experimental situation itself. In order to back this up B+M presented details of the SPE to a group of students who had never heard of it, the vast majority correctly predicted the guards would be hostile and the prisoners would be passive

Suggests Zimbardo’s study may not be measuring conformity to social roles accurately and lacks internal validity

Question 21

How do Zimbardo’s findings lack reliability?

Answer 21

Reicher and Haslam (2006) conducted a modern day replication of the study in the UK (BBC prison study)

Their findings were very different to Zimbardo’s - the prisoners took control of the prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience

Question 22

How do Zimbardo’s findings have applications to modern day events?

Answer 22

Zimbardo argues that the same conformity to role role effect was evident in the study was also evident in Abu Ghraib, a military prison in Iraq notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraq prisoners by US soldiers in 2003 and 2004

Zimbardo believed that the guards who committed the abuses were the victims of situation factors that made abuse more likely

This is a strength of Zimbardo’s research as it can give us insight into conformity of social roles in modern day events

Question 23

What happened in Milgram’s obedience study (1956)?

Answer 23

Milgram wanted to test if ordinary Americans would obey an unjust order from a person in authority

40 male volunteers were recruited by newspaper and were deceived to believe they were giving electric shocks
The participants were told the study was a test of the role of punishment and learning. The participant would always be the teacher and the confederate the learner

The teachers role was to administer a shock every time the learner was incorrect
The teacher watched the leaner being strapped into a chair in an adjoining room and electrodes attached to his arm

To begin the confederate would answer correctly and eventually began to make mistakes. After every error they were shocked by the participant, shocks started at 15 volts and increased in 15 volt increments until 450 volts
The experiment continued until the participant refused to administer the shock or the confederate was shocked at 450 volts 4 times

Question 24

What were the baseline findings of Milgram’s obedience study (1956)?

Answer 24

All participants went up to at least 300 volts
65% of participants went up to the maximum of 450 volts

Question 25

What was concluded from Milgram’s obedience study (1956)?

Answer 25

Under certain circumstances people will unwillingly go against their moral judgements and will instead obey the demands of a perceived authority figure

Question 26

How was Milgram’s experiment (1956) effected by demand characteristics?

Answer 26

Orne and Holland (1968) argued that the participants in Milgram’s study gave very high electrical shocks because they had guessed that the shocks weren’t real This POV is supported by Perry (2012) who discovered that many of Milgram’s participants had been sceptical at the time if the shocks were real One of Milgram’s research assistants divided the participants into what he called ‘doubters’ and ‘believers’, he found that the ‘believers’ were more likely to disobey and give only low intensity shocks This is a problem with Milgram’s study as it supports the view that it lacks internal validity

Question 27

What were some supporting replications of Milgram’s obedience study (1956)?

Answer 27

Blass (1999) carried out statistical analysis of all of Milgram’s obedience experiments and studies conducted by other researchers between 1961-85. The later studies found no more or less obedience than the ones conducted earlier More recently, Burger (2009) found levels of obedience almost identical to the ones found by Milgram 46 years earlier This is a strength because it suggests that Milgram’s findings still appear to apply today as much as the did in the early 1960s

Question 28

How did Milgram’s experiment into obedience (1956) have an unrepresentative sample?

Answer 28

Only male representatives from America took part in the experiment This means the study only gives us an insight into obedience in a limited sample that suffers from culture and gender bias and findings into obedience may differ when carried out with females or other cultures This is an issue as it may be difficult to generalise the findings about obedience to other populations

Question 29

What are the 3 variations Milgram carried out after his original obedience experiment?

Answer 29

Location Proximity Uniform

Question 30

What happened when the location of Milgram’s experiment was changed?

Answer 30

The venue moved from Yale University to seedy offices Obedience rate dropped from 65% to 47.5%

Question 31

What happened when the proximity was changed for Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 31

The teacher and learner were placed in the same room - obedience dropped to 40% The teacher had to force the learners hand onto a plate to receive the shock - obedience dropped to 30% Experimenter left the room and gave instructions over the phone - obedience dropped to 20.5%

Question 32

What is the dispositional explanation for obedience?

Answer 32

Obedience is dispositional not situational. Authoritarian personality types tend to have respect for those in positions of authority and so are more likely to obey them but are hostile to those of lower social status. This personality type is common in people who have had strict family upbringings and harsh discipline as a child leading them to fear punishment from those in authority

Question 33

Strength of the dispositional explanation for obedience?

Answer 33

Supporting evidence - Elms and Milgram’s research; 20 ps who had been obedient in the Milgram study were later questioned using the F-Scale, and scored highly on authoritarianism. They also reported viewing the experimenter as more admirable than the learner as less so. This supports the theory that the authoritarian personality makes us more likely to obey. Adorno et Al - the F-Scale was used to measure authoritarian personality type in 200 middle class white Americans. F - those who scored highly showed prejudice towards those perceived as ‘weak’ and respect to those perceived as ‘strong’ meaning they were more likely to obey

Question 34

Weakness for the dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 34

Cant account for an entire group/society - e.g it is very unlikely that the high levels of obedience, racism and anti-Semitic behaviour seen in Germany during WW2 could be due to dispositional factors. This is a weakness as it appears that alternative explanations must influence obedience much more than the authoritarian personality.

Question 35

What are the explanations of resistance to social influence?

Answer 35

Social support Locus of control (LOC)

Question 36

What is social support?

Answer 36

Pressure to conform at its most powerful when the group is ‘unanimous’, as well as pressure to obey is most powerful when everyone obeys a figure of authority. A dissenter is one person in a group who resists the pressure to conform or obey, which helps others do the same. These people act as models to show that resistance to social influence is possible by demonstrating how to resist as well as demonstrating the consequences of resisting

Question 37

What is Locus of control (LOC)?

Answer 37

LOC is if individuals feel that they have control over events in their lives. Those who have an internal LOC believe they can control the events in their life, events are a consequence of their own ability and effort, they are more likely to resist social influence. Those with an external LOC believe events are out of their control and ‘just happen’ and believe events are determined by external factors such as friends or luck, they are less likely to resist social influence.

Question 38

Strengths of social support?

Answer 38

Supporting evidence - Asch found that when one of the confederates became a dissenter and gave a different answer to the confederates, conformity dropped from 33% to 5%. Even when the dissenter gave a wrong answer Milgram’s variations - the Ps were in a team of 3, with 2 confederates who one after another refused to administer shocks, obedience dropped to 10%. The dissenters appeared to have ‘freed up’ the participants

Question 39

Weakness of LOC?

Answer 39

Evidence against - Twenge et al analysed findings from obedience studies over 40 years and found that despite people becoming more resistant to social influence, they increasingly believed that their fate was determined more by luck rather than their own actions, suggestive of an external LOC. This goes against the LOC explanation as we would expect as resistance was linked to an internal LOC

Question 40

What is minority influence?

Answer 40

Minority influence is when 1 person or a small group of people influences the beliefs and behaviours of others. This is most likely to lead to internalisation in which public and private views are changed. There are 3 main processes: consistency, commitment and flexibility

Question 41

What is consistency in minority influence?

Answer 41

The minority needs to be consistent; they need to keep to and frequently repeat the same beliefs/message. Synchronic consistency is when members of the minority are all saying the same thing. Diachronic consistency is when they have been saying the same thing for some Time

Question 42

What is commitment in minority influence?

Answer 42

A minority need to be dedicated to the cause, this can be demonstrated by taking part in extreme activities which put the minority at some risk. If there are risks in putting forward a point of view, others take more seriously

Question 43

What is flexibility in minority influence?

Answer 43

Consistency is important but repeating the same arguments again and again may look rigid, unbending and narrow minded. Instead, the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept valid counterarguments. There needs to be a balance of consistency and flexibility. All 3 make you think about the minorities view.

Question 44

Strength of minority influence?

Answer 44

Supporting evidence - Moscovici, groups of 6 were asked to view set of blue-coloured slides and state if they were blue or green. In the consistent condition 2 confederates called all the blue slides green (participants called the slides green in 8.42% of trials, 32% said green at least once). In the inconsistent trial 2 confederates called the slides green 24 times and blue 12 times (participants said green on 1.25% of the trials). This shows the importance of consistency in the way views and behaviour of the minority.

Question 45

Weakness of minority influence?

Answer 45

Contradictory evidence - Research suggests if the majority identifies with the minority, they are more likely to change their own views in line with the minority view. This shows unless the majority can identify in same way with the minority, change is unlikely to occur, despite the behavioural style.

Question 46

What is social change through minority influence?

Answer 46

Minorities can bring about social svante by drawing the majority’s attention to the issue Minority’s can be most influential in bringing social change when they are consistent Minority’s can be taken more seriously when they show commitment to their views, by taking a risk or suffering The influence of the minority begins to gain momentum as members of the majority join their position, and more people pay attention until it becomes wide scale change (snowball effect)

Question 47

What is social change through majority influence?

Answer 47

Conformity can also play a role in social change because behaviours of individuals are shaped by perceived social norms NSI suggests we change our behaviours because of the desire to be liked. If individuals believe that the majority behave in a way differently to the way they do, they may change to avoid being socially deviant Gradual commitment from Milgram’s research suggests social change is more likely if changes start small and gradually increase

Question 48

Weakness of minority influence in social change?

Answer 48

Limited application - influence may be limited as they are seen as deviant in the eyes of the majority. Therefore, members of the majority may avoid supporting the minority position as the don’t want to be seen as deviant themselves This increases the challenge that minorities face trying to bring about social change

Question 49

Strength of majority influence?

Answer 49

Supporting evidence - Nolan, investigating majority influence. They hung messages in the front doors of houses, trying to get people to reduce energy use. Control condition - message asking to reduce energy use Experimental condition - key message saying the most residents were trying to reduce energy use. There were significant decreases in energy use in the experimental condition compared to the control condition