Social influence Flashcards
(151 cards)
1
Q
define conformity
A
the tendency to change what we do, think or say in response to the influence of real or pressure from a majority group
2
Q
what are the two explanations for conformity
A
-Normative social influence –> we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance
-Informational social influence –> we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well (may lead to internalisation)
3
Q
what are the three types of conformity suggested by Klerman
A
Compliance –> When an individual changes their behaviour in response to an explicit or implicit request made by another person (the most shallow) - superficial as only change public beliefs
Internalisation –> When a person changes both their public behaviour and private beliefs (deepest level)
Identification –> When a person changes their public behaviour and private beliefs but only in the presence of the group they are identifying with
4
Q
what was the aim of sherifs experiment
A
demonstrating that people conform to group norms when they are put in an ambigious situation
5
Q
what was the method of sherifs experiment
A
Sherif used a lab experiment to study conformity. He used the autokinetic effect where a small spot of light was projected in a dark room that appears to be moving even though it is still. Participants were falsely told the experimenter would move the light. There were 3 phases. In the first phase participants were by themself and estimates were varied widely. In the second phase participants were in a group where estimates tended to converge and be more alike. In the final phase participants were alone but their estimate was similar to their previous group estimate.
6
Q
Conclusion of sherif’s experiment
A
When in an ambiguous situation a person is more likely to turn to others for guidance as they want to do the right thing.
7
Q
define majority influence
A
refers to the process by which the majority alters the attitudes and behaviour of the minority. This may be due to normative social influence but can also be due to informational social influence, where the minority yields to group pressure because they perceive the majority as having more knowledge or information
8
Q
Aim of Asch’s line study (1951)
A
investigate conformity and majority influence
9
Q
what was the procedure of Asch’s line study
A
- Participants and confederates were presented with 4 lines; 3 comparison lines and 1 standard line
- They asked to state which of three lines was the same length as a stimulus line
- The real participant always answered last or second to last
- Confederates would give the same incorrect answer for 12 out of 18 trials
- Asch observed how often the participant would give the same incorrect answer as the confederates versus the correct answer
10
Q
Findings of Asch’s line study
A
36.8% conformed
25% never conformed
75% conformed at least once In a control trial,
only 1% of responses given by participants were incorrect (which eliminates eyesight/perception as an extraneous variable, thus increasing the validity of the conclusions drawn)
11
Q
what are the variables affecting conformity
A
group size
unanimity of conformity
difficulty of task
12
Q
how does group size affect conformity
A
An individual is more likely to conform in a larger group. There was low conformity with group size of confederates were less than 3 - any more than 3 and the conformity rose by 30%. A person is more likely to conform if all members of the group are in agreement and give the same answer, because it will increase their confidence in correctness of the group, and decrease their confidence in their own answer. Conformity does not seem to increase in groups larger than four so this is considered the optimal group size. This shows that the majority must be at least 3 to exert an influence, but an overwhelming majority is not needed in all instances to bring about conformity
13
Q
how does unanimity of majority affect conformity
A
An individual is more likely to conform when the group is unanimous i.e. all give the same answer, as opposed to them all giving different answer. When joined by another participant or disaffected confederate who gave the correct answer, conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%. If different answers are given, it falls from 32% to 9%. . The more unanimous the group is, the more confidence the participant will have that they are all correct, and therefore the participant’s answer is more likely to be incorrect. Unanimity is vital in establishing a consistent majority view, which is particularly important by providing normative social influence.
14
Q
how does difficulty of task affect conformity
A
An individual is more likely to conform when the task is difficult. For example, Asch altered the (comparison) lines (e.g. A, B, C) making them more similar in length. Since it was harder to judge the correct answer conformity increased. When the task is difficult, we are more uncertain of our answer so we look to others for confirmation. The more difficult the task the greater the conformity. This suggests that informational social influence is a major mechanism for conformity when the situation is ambiguous and the individual does not have enough of their own knowledge or information to make an informed decision independently, and so has to look towards others.
15
Q
conclusion of Asch’s line experiment
A
In a group situation there is a tendency to conform to the judgements of others, even when these judgements are quite clearly incorrect. However, there are considerable individual differences in whether people or not conform.
16
Q
Strength’s of Asch’s line experiment
A
-High internal validity - There was strict control over extraneous variables, such as timing of assessment and the type of task used. The participants did the experiment before without confederates to see if they actually knew the correct answer, thus removing the confounding variable of a lack of knowledge. This suggests that valid and reliable ‘cause and effect’ relationships can be established, as well as valid conclusions. Lab experiment
- Extraneous and confounding variables are strictly controlled, meaning that replication of the experiment is easy. Successful replication increases the reliability of the findings because it reduces the likelihood that the observed findings were a ‘one-off’
17
Q
weaknesses of Asch’s line experiment
A
-Lacks ecological validity - it was based on peoples’ perception of lines and so the findings cannot be generalised to real life as it does not reflect the complexity of real life conformity i.e. where there are many other confounding variables and majorities exert influence irrespective of being a large group.
limited application of findings = Neto (1995) = women might be more conformist as they might be more concerned about social relationships than men
-Lacks population validity due to sampling issues - For example, the participants were only American male undergraduates, and so the study was subject to gender bias, where it is assumed that findings from male participants can be generalised to females (i.e. beta bias).
-Ethical issues: - there was deception as participants were tricked into thinking the study was about perception rather than compliance so they could not give informed consent. - There could have been psychological harm as the participants could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study. - Such issues simply mean that a cost-benefit analysis is required to evaluate whether the ethical costs are smaller than the benefits of increased knowledge of the field. They do not affect the validity or reliability of findings.
conducted in individualistic not collectivistic cultures
-Lacked temporal validity - The social context of the 1950s may have affected results. For example, Perrin and Spencer criticised the study by stating that the period that the experiment was conducted in influenced the results because it was an anti-Communist period in America when people were more scared to be different i.e. McCarthyism. Thus, the study can be said to lack temporal validity because the findings cannot be generalised across all time periods.
18
Q
what type of conformity goes with which explanation
A
internalisation –> informational social influence
compliance –> normative social influence
19
Q
What are the difficulties in distinguishing between NSI and ISI
A
The original two process theory stated that people either conform due to ISI or NSI. For example Asch’s non conforming confederate condition conformity levels reduced. This may have been due to NSI in having social support from someone else of reduced ISI due to another source of information. This shows that it is not always possible to be sure which is the influencing factor. This therefore reduces the validity of the theory
20
Q
Support for normative social influence
A
Asch’s line study
-Unanimity in a group increases conformity
21
Q
Support for informational social influence
A
Asch’s made comparison lines more similar so task was more difficult. Participants conformed as they wanted to be correct.
Jenness jelly bean experiment
22
Q
what was Jeness’ experiment (1932)
A
Aim: investigate how humans conform based on the behaviour of others surrounding them
Procedure: gathered 101 psychology students who had to estimate how many beans were in a jar. Then they were split into groups to communicate guesses. They then had to estimate again.
Results: Males changed answer by 256 beans and females by 382 beans
Conclusion: Demonstrates informational social influence especially in an ambiguous situation
23
Q
what are the strengths and limitations of Jeness’s experiment
A
Strengths –> ethical study (no psychological harm etc)
-ambigious question
Limitations –> Experiment had no controls so extraneous variables were not accounted for
—> ambigious so does not inform us about conformity in non-ambigious situations
–> included both normative and informational social influence
24
Q
define social roles
A
parts people play as members of various social groups
25
define social norms
unwritten beliefs and rules that are considered acceptable
26
define a non-conforming confederate
person who encourages other people not to conform in an experiment
27
why are different social groups adapted for different social roles
Different social roles are adopted for different social situations as social roles help structure interactions within groups that provides the framework for understanding what is expected of individuals
28
how were the prisoners dehumanised in Zimbardo's study
prisoners were blindfolded, strip searched etc
29
define obedience
a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming
30
what was the aim of Milgram's study
To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person i.e. evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure.
31
procedure of milgram's study
A participant given the role of ‘teacher’ and a confederate given the role of ‘learner’. This was decided through a random allocation. Participant had to ask the confederate a series of questions. Whenever the confederate got the answer wrong, the participant had to give him an electric shock, even when no answer was given. The electric shocks incremented by 15 volts at a time, ranging from 300V to 450V, where 330V was marked as ‘lethal’. Participants thought the shocks were real when in fact there were no real shocks administered, and the confederate was acting. The shocks were falsely demonstrated to be real prior to the start of the study. Participants were assessed on how many volts they were willing to shock the confederate with. The experimenter’s role was to give a series of orders / prods when the participant refused to administer a shock, which increased in terms of demandingness for every time the participant refused to administer a shock. The same 4 prods were used each time when participants refused to administer the shocks. The first 3 demanded obedience to science, whereas the final prod demanded obedience specifically to the confederate.
Prod 1: please continue or please go on
Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue
Prod 3: it is absolutely essential that you continue
Prod 4: You have no other choice you must go on
Before the study, Milgram asked psychiatrists, college students and colleagues to predict how long participants would go before refusing to continue.
32
Findings of Milgrams study
All participants went up to 300V and 65% went up to 450V. No participants stopped below 300V, And 100% went to 300V, showing that the vast majority of participants were prepared to give lethal electric shocks to a confederate.
also collected qualitative data = ppts showed signs of extreme tension = sweat, tremble, stutter etc
33
what is the germans are different hypothesis
Germans have a basic character deficit which means they have the readiness to obey people in authority regardless of the act they are committing
34
what type of sample, experiment was used for milgrams study
lab experiment
volunteer sample
participants were paid 4 dollars to be part of the study
35
how many participants were used for Milgram's study and how realistic was the study
40 male participants from Yale university
Milgram made the experiment as realistic as possible as the confederates slammed their hands on the table when "shocked"
36
3 factors affecting obedience
proximity, uniform, location
37
Proximity
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room i.e. 62.5%. This was reduced to 40% when the experimenter and participant were in separate rooms, and reduced to a further 30% in the touch proximity condition i.e. where the experimenter forcibly placed the participant’s hand on the electric plate.
38
Location
Participants obeyed more when the study was conducted at a prestigious university i.e. Stanford. This is because the prestige of such a location demands obedience and also may increase the trust that the participant places in the integrity of the researchers and their experiments.
39
Uniform
Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat. A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes. However, demand characteristics were particularly evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting that many participants could see through this deception.
40
strengths of milgrams experiment
-Debriefing - The participants were thoroughly and carefully debriefed on the real aims of the study, in an attempt to deal with the ethical breach of the guideline of protection from deception and the possibility to give informed consent. In a follow up study conducted a year later, 84% of participants were glad they were part of the study and 74% felt as if they learned something. This suggests that the study left little or no permanent or long-term psychological harm on participants.
High external validity = Milgram argued his experiment showed authoritarian relationships =
Real life applications — This research opened our eyes to the problem of obedience and so may reduce future obedience in response to destructive authority figures e.g. obedience has resulted in negative social change - the Nazis obeyed orders and as a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted and what he wanted was not what the majority of people wanted. Such research also gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to, and so highlights how we can all easily be victims to such pressures. A general awareness of the power of such influences is useful in establishing social order and moral behaviours.
High in internal validity — Despite, Gina Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks. However, quantitative data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real - these findings appear plausible when considering that 100% of the females used in Sheridan and King’s study administered real electric shocks to puppies. This suggests that although the findings were certainly surprising, they were also likely to be accurate.
Highly replicable – The procedure has been repeated all over the world, where consistent and similar obedience levels have been found. For example, in a replication of Milgram’s study using the TV pseudonym of Le Jeu de la Mort, researchers found that 85% of participants were willing to give lethal electric shocks to an unconscious man (confederate), whilst being cheered on by a presenter and a TV audience. Such replication increases the reliability of the findings.
41
limitations of milgrams experiment
was justified by the aim of avoiding demand characteristics/ the ‘Please-U’ effect/ participant reactivity (where participants change their behaviour in response to knowing that they are being observed). -
There was psychological harm inflicted upon the participants - They showed signs of psychological and physiological distress such as trembling, sweating and nervous laughter. Such findings were also replicated in the Jeu de la Mort study, showing that these results were not simps due to participant variables/differences.
- It raises a socially sensitive issue – Milgram’s findings suggest that those who are responsible for killing innocent people can be excused because it is not their personality that made them do this, but it is because of the situation that they were in and the fact that it is difficult to disobey – some may strongly disagree with this, and especially the judicial system, where (except in viable cases of diminished responsibility), individuals are expected to take moral responsibility for their actions.
- Lack of internal validity – The experiment may have been about trust rather than about obedience because the experiment was held at Stanford University. Therefore, the participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen to the confederate, especially considering the immense prestige of the location. Also when the experiment was replicated in a run-down office, obedience decreased to a mere 20.5%. This suggests that the original study did not investigate what it aimed to investigate.
- Lack of ecological validity – The tasks given to participants are not like those we would encounter in real life e.g. shooting somebody in the face is different from flicking a switch, meaning that the methodology lacks mundane realism, producing results which are low in ecological validity.
42
Where did Zimbardo's study take place and how were participants chosen
-Study took place in Stanford University
-Volunteer sample where participants who volunteered were screened for psychological health
-Participants were randomly assigned to their roles of either guard or prisoner
43
what were the social roles within Zimbardo's study
Authority, hierarchy, dehumanisation
44
what was Zimbardo's role in his study
-prison superintendent
-lead psychologist
45
Aim of Zimbardo's experiment
To investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a simulated environment, and specifically, to investigate why ‘good people do bad things’.
46
Procedure of Zimbardo's experiment
-The basement of the Stanford University psychology building was converted into a simulated prison. American student volunteers were paid to take part in the study.
-They were randomly issued one of two roles; guard or prisoner. Both prisoners and guards had to wear uniforms.
- Prisoners were only referred to by their assigned number.
-Guards were given props like handcuffs and sunglasses (to make eye contact with prisoners impossible and to reinforce the boundaries between the two social roles within the established social hierarchy). No one was allowed to leave the simulated prison.
-Guards worked eight hour shifts, while the others remained on call. Prisoners were only allowed in the hallway which acted as their yard, and to the toilet.
-The guards were allowed to control such behaviour, in order to emphasise their complete power over the prisoners! No physical violence was permitted, in line with ethical guidelines and to prevent complete overruling. The behaviour of the participants was observed
47
Results of Zimbardo's experiment
-Identification occurred very fast, as both the prisoners and guards adopted their new roles and played their part in a short amount of time, despite the apparent disparity between the two social roles.
- Guards began to harass and torment prisoners in harsh and aggressive ways – they later reported to have enjoyed doing so and relished in their new-found power and control.
-Prisoners would only talk about prison issues (forgetting about their previous real life), and snitch on other prisoners to the guards to please them. This is significant evidence to suggest that the prisoners believed that the prison was real, and were not acting simply due to demand characteristics.
-They would even defend the guards when other prisoners broke the rules, reinforcing their social roles as prisoner and guard, despite it not being real.
-The guards became more demanding of obedience and assertiveness towards the prisoners while the prisoners become more submissive. This suggests that the respective social roles became increasingly internalised.
48
Conclusions of Zimbardo's experiment
-people quickly conform to social roles even when the role goes against moral principles
-situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found
49
strengths of Zimbardo's experiment
--> Real life applications – This research changed the way US prisons are run e.g. young prisoners are no longer kept with adult prisoners to prevent the bad behaviour perpetuating. Beehive-style prisons, where all cells are under constant surveillance from a central monitoring unit, are also not used in modern times, due to such setups increasing the effects of institutionalisation and over exaggerating the differences in social roles between prisoners and guards.
--> Debriefing – participants were fully and completely debriefed about the aims and results of the study. This is particularly important when considering that the BPS ethical guidelines of deception and informed consent had been breached. Dealing with ethical issues in this way simply makes the study more ethically acceptable, but does not change the quality (in terms of validity and reliability) of the findings.
Random allocation of participants --> reduces the impact of participant variables
50
Limitations of Zimbardo's study
-Demand characteristics = reduced validity --> One of the guards said he took inspiration from a film character and adapted his behaviour to act in a similar way – very harsh authoritarian manner. This is a problem because we do not have accurate data of people will act naturally when put in this type of situation. This questions if the behaviour is due to conforming to social roles or if there are other factors that were playing a part which reduces the validity of the study
-Ethical issues --> Another problem with Zimbardo's study is that participants were not protected from harm and experienced psychological disturbance as a result. For example one of the participants went mad and were very expressive in terms of their actions. This is a problem as participants were left distressed and their mental wellbeing was significantly affected thus bringing about the cost benefit analysis of this experiment
51
what is the structure for a describe the study 6 marker (APRC)
1) Aim
2) 2 points about the procedure
3) 2 points about the results
4) conclusion
52
what terms do you use for peel evaluations
GRAVESOCS
-generalisation
-reliability
-application
-validity
-ethics
-subjectivity
-objectivity
-credibility
-scientific
53
when answering a conformity evaluation question what would you include
-explain conformity
-use case/research studies
-strengths/limitations
54
what were Milgram's variations
-location, proximity, uniform
55
what was burger's contemporary study
-replication of Milgram's study with more modern participants/ethical standards
-there were both male and female participants and test shock was 15v rather than 45v
56
what was Hoflings research
researcher would call psychiatrists and tell them to administer a medicine above regular dosage
-21/22 nurses obeyed and did not question
57
what is a dispositional explanation
internal explanation i.e personality factors/individual reasons why
someone obeys.
58
what are the 3 explanations for obedience
-legitimacy of authority
-agentic state
-authoritarian personality
59
legitimacy of authority
-This describes how credible the figure of authority is. People are more likely to obey them if they are seen as credible in terms of being morally good/right, and legitimate (i.e. legally based or law abiding). This is why students are more likely to listen to their parents or teachers than other unknown adults. In Milgram’s study, the people saw the experimenter as legitimate as they knew he was a scientist and therefore is likely to be knowledgeable and responsible - this is called expert authority. This authority was legitimate (justified) because the researcher held the highest position within the social hierarchy of the experimental scenario.
-Application to real life --> police officers or Hitler is an example of destructive authority
60
what is destructive authority
those in authority use power for destructive purposes
61
what is the agentic state
-This is when a person believes that someone else will take responsibility for their own actions. When a person shifts from an autonomous state (the state in which a person believes they will take responsibility for their own actions) to the agentic state, it is called an Agentic Shift. Therefore, agency theory is the idea that people are more likely to obey when they are in the agentic state as they do not believe they will suffer the consequences of those actions. This is because they believe that they are acting on behalf of their agent. In Milgram's study 35% did not go up to 450v due to their autonomy
-Three factors that make the agentic state more likely to happen --> trust of those in authority, initial reasonable orders, people cannot see the consequences of their actions
62
define the agentic state
acting as an agent of someone else's control
63
what is the autonomous state
acting independently and following one's own moral code
64
define moral strain
knowing that your actions are morally wrong yet still performing actions due to agency
65
what is the authoritarian personality
-Milgram believed that there was probably a complex personality basis to obedience and disobedience. He notes that his obedience study created a conflict in participants who had a deeply rooted disposition not to harm someone else, yet the equally strong tendency to obey authority.
66
what is the F scale
-F scale --> Adorno et al (1950) ---> questionnaire --> measure the different components that made up the authoritarian personality. It contained statements such as obedience and respect are the most important virtues children should learn
67
what was the aim of adorno's research
investigate causes of obedience
68
procedure of Adorno's research
2000 middle class white Americans and explored their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups (links to psychodynamic approach)
69
Findings and conclusions of Adorno's research
Findings --> Such individuals with an authoritarian personality have a ‘fixed’ cognitive style, where they do not challenge stereotypes due to their tendency to adopt absolutist/‘black and white’ thinking. This accordance with stereotypes prevents any grey areas emerging from uncertainty.
Conclusion --> people with an authoritarian personality have a tendency to be especially obedient to authority and show contempt to those they perceive as inferior.
Authoritarian personality is formed from childhood as a result of harsh parenting (hostility + resentment)
70
what is an example for normative social influence
Asch's line study
71
what is an example for informational social influence
Jenness (1932)
72
what are examples of research similar to Milgram's
-Burger
-Hoflings
73
what are strengths for normative social influence
-One strength of NSI is that there is research evidence. Asch's conformity study provides evidence for why people respond to pressure of the others in a group. For example when he interviewed his naive participants after the experiment they all said that they felt too self conscious to give the right answer and did not want to be the odd one out. Giving an alternative answer would have put them in the spotlight which was not desirable. Furthermore Asch found further supporting evidence in one of his variations, when participants had to write their answers down a sheet of paper in private, without any verbal contribution to the group. In this scenario, conformity fell from 36.8% to 12.5% indicating that they all knew the correct answers and only conformed to NSI due to fear of rejection but when their answers were reported privately, this wasn't an issue.
74
what are strengths for informational social influence
One strength of ISI is that there is research evidence for why people would confirm for the reasons to be correct. For example Lucas et al studied the degree to which participants would conform to when they were asked maths questions increasing in difficulty. He found that there was an increase in conformity rates to incorrect answers when harder questions were asked. These people rated their maths ability poor and looked to the majority' others for guidance. This supports the idea that we conform in ambiguous situations where we are less knowledgeable and believe others around us know better.
75
what are weaknesses for normative social influence
Individual Differences - NSI does not affect everyones behaviour in the same way. People who were less concerned with being liked are less affected by NSI than those who care more about being liked.
76
what are weaknesses for informational social influence
One limitation of ISI is that there is counteracting research evidence supporting the idea of individual differences in the extent to which people might conform to a group. For example Perrin & Spencer studied 390 engineering students in a version of Asch's lines. They found that conformity reduced a lot indicating that people who are educated and knowledgeable trust their own judgements of precision and less likely to seek guidance from others. Therefore there are individual differences to how people respond to the pressure of the majority
77
What is Zimbardo's study an example of and what type of study was this
identification
controlled, overt observation
78
what were criticisms and responses of Zimbardo's study
-unethical (not protected from harm and could not give informed consent) but he stopped the experiment early (6 days in)
-lack of generalisability (white middle class men only)
-lack of ecological validity however 90% of conversations in the study was about life in prison
-impact of investigator effects resulting in demand characteristics
79
why can normative social influence occur
due to high social pressure
80
what are critisms and responses of Asch's study
lacks ecological validity but lab experiments allow cause and effect relationship to be established
ignores individual variables but 75% did conform
81
what was the aim of hoflings study
To find out whether nurses would obey orders from a doctor when it meant going against hospital rules
82
what was the procedure of hoflings study (evidence for legitemacy of authority)
it was a field experiment which took place in 3 hospitals. 22 nurses were targeted for the field experiment where nurses received a phone call from an unknown doctor who was a confederate and asked the nurses to administer an overdose of a drug called astroten. The nurses who obeyed would break the 3 hospital rules; administration of the drug not on the hospital stock list, accepting orders by phone and accepting orders from an unfamiliar doctor. The drug was actually a placebo
83
what was the results of Hofling's study
21/22 nurses followed the order and gave the medication. When debriefed after, 10 nurses said they hadnt noticed the dose was too high
84
what was the conclusion of Hofling's study
people will follow order's detrimental to other people
85
what were the strengths and limitations of Hofling's study
Strengths --> high ecological validity, high internal validity
Limitations --> ethical issues, cannot be generalised, unreliable
86
define social support
difficult to go against a majority not only because we want to be accepted by the group but also have a desire to act the right way
87
why would people resist conformity
The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming. Asch's study showed how the person not conforming doesn’t have to give the right answer but simply show they are not following the majority. The presence of an ally increases an individual's confidence in their decision and thus reduces conformity. However, Asch's research showed that the effect of dissent Is not long lasting
-Easier to resist conformity of size of majority is smaller
88
why would people resist obedience
The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey. This is because the disobedient peer acts as a role model on which the individual can model their own behaviour. For example, in one of Milgram's variations when there was a disobedient confederate in the room with the participant, obedience dropped to 10%.
89
what is the internal locus of control
-internal --> I control my own destiny (own personal descisons and effort)
those with an internal locus of control are less likely to conform to social influence. Therefore those with an internal LOC are more likely to be leaders
--> locus of control refers to the response we each have about what directs events in our lives.
90
what is the external locus of control
others control my destiny (luck or fate)
91
what are the strengths of LOC
There is research evidence to support this theory. Holland repeated Milgram's study by splitting participants into external or internal locus of control categories. Internal locus of control had greater resistance to authority
92
what are the limitations of LOC
However, other research contradicts this theory. For example Jean Twenge et al analysed data over a 40 year period. The data showed that people became more resistant to obedience were external locus of control. This was unrelated to previous data
Additionally, Rotter arguably argued that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence and it depends on the situation. LOC is overexaggerated. - very little role in familiar situations where our experiences can discern our actions
93
define social change
when a society adopts a new belief or way of believing that then becomes widely accepted as the norm e.g attitudes towards homosexuality (legalised in 1967)
94
define minority influence
a form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours
95
why does minority influence tend to be long lasting
minority position tends to be longer lasting as people have internalised the minority's point of view
96
what are the three behavioural styles for coversion
consistency, commitment, flexibility
97
consistency
maintains the same beliefs overtime which is effective because it draws attention to minority view. Synchronic consistency --> all say same thing. Diachronic consistency --> saying same thing over time. Makes people rethink their own views
98
commitment
minority demonstrates dedication to their position e.g through personal sacrifices. Participation in extreme activities so majority group members pay more attention (same behaviour) eir position
99
flexibility
attempting to accept the possibility of a compromise. Adopt their point of view and accept reasonable/valid counter argument
100
aim of moscovi's experiment
how the minority influences the majority
101
procedure of moscovi's experiment
* It was a lab experiment * Participants were in a group where there were two confederates (the minority) and four participants (the majority). * Everyone was shown 36 blue slides, each with a different shade of blue. * They were each asked to say whether the slide was blue or green. * Confederates deliberately said they were green on two-thirds of the trials, thus producing a consistent minority view. * The number of times that the real participants reported that the slide was green was observed. * A control group was also used consisting of participants only – no confederates.
102
findings of moscovi's experiment and conclusion
When the confederates were consistent in their answers about 8% of participants said the slides were green. However, when the confederates answered inconsistently about 1% of participants said the slides were green. This shows that consistency is crucial for a minority to exert maximum influence on a majority.
-Conclusions --> minorities can change the opinions of the majority particularly if they are consistent
103
strengths of moscovi's experiment
internal validity,
Wood et al = conducted meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies = those who were more consistent = more influential
research support for internalisation e.g In a variation of this experiment one group heard the opinion of the majority and the other of the minority,
lab experiment ensures consistency and high levels of control
104
limitations of moscovi's experiment
lacks real world applications, lacks ecological validity due to mundane realism
Martin et al = one group of ptts heard view from minority group and the other heard from a majoirty group = people were less willing to choose minority view
105
what are situational explanations for obedience
legitimacy of authority
agentic state
106
what is a dispositional explanation for obedience
authoritarian personality theory
107
are people with an external LOC more likely to conform or not
conform
108
social change process
-drawing attention to an issue --> social proof of the problem e.g civil rights movement where there were black neighborhoods and restaurants exclusive to white people
-Consistency --> minority participates and acts like majorities to display their message/intent
-Deeper processing --> attention which means that many who had simply accepted the status quo began to think about the unjustness of it
-The augmentation principle --> individuals risk their lives/make sacrifices e.g freedom riders wanted to challenge the fact that black people had to sit at the back of the buses
-The snowball effect --> Continual press for changes by minority to make it the majority
-Social cryptoamnesia --> people have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened
109
real life example of social change
Rosa Parks bus boycott
35,000 posters etc
110
strengths of social change
-Research support for normative influences --> Nolan et al investigated whether social influences processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community. He found significant decreases in energy usage where consistent messages were posted.
111
limitations of social change
-Social change through minority influences may be very gradual and limited --> influences may be very gradual and limited --> History challenges the view that minorities such as the suffragettes brought about social change quickly. Humans have a strong tendency to conform to the majority position so groups are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change. E.g has taken decades for attitudes to smoking to change
-Barriers to social change --> Bashir et al investigated why people often resist social change even when they agree it is necessary. For example they found that ppts were less likely to behave in an environmentally friendly way as they did not want to be associated with stereotypical environmentalists "tree huggers".
-Methodological issues --> Research e.g Moscovici, Asch and Milgram can be criticized for their validity for a variety of reasons e,g mundane realism. Therefore as research is flawed we can challenge the validity of these explanations
112
What is Asch's study an example of
majority influence
113
what were the prods provided for Milgram's experiment to participants
Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
114
what percentage of people withdrew from Milgram's study
35%
115
what is social support
a situational explanation for why people resist social influence
116
why do people resist social influence
-social support
-internal locus of control
117
Evaluation of dispositional explanations for obedience
-social desirability bias (limitation)
-levels of education led to authoritarian personality
-there are other situational factors which contribute to obedience
118
what was Nemeth's experiment
-he conducted Moscovici's experiment but this time in attempt to test felxibility e.g participants responded to cards as being blue-green in colour
119
moral strain
shown by those following the agentic state as they follow someone elses moral code
120
situational reasons for resistance to social influence
-social support
-lower group size
-lack of legitemate authority etc
121
dispositional reasons for resistance to social infuence
-internal locus of control
122
suffagette movement
the suffragettes were consistent in their view and persistently used educational and political arguments to draw attention to female rights. Furthermore, they remained consistent for many years and despite opposition continued protesting and lobbying until they convinced society that women were entitled to vote. In addition, many of the suffragettes made significant sacrifices for their cause; many risked imprisonment and others risked death through extended hunger strikes, making their influence even more powerful. Finally, the suffragettes used group membership to convince other women to join their cause to expand their influence and membership. Overtime their influence spread with people considering the issue until it lead to social change and all adults gaining the right to vote.
123
use your knowledge of minority influence to explain how Jenny might be able to persuade the rest of the department to accept her view
-consistency --> keep same perspective so other retain her belief and accept it
-committment --> give up time bu researching best teachign methods
-felxibility --> trial marking strategies = less rigid and dogmatic
124
legitemacy of authority
-based on social status/ heirachy
-offered by Milgram
-recognise authority through early socialisation
125
research for social support as an explanation for disconformity
-Levine et al replicated Asch's study and found that conformity decreased when support was there
126
Discuss authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience (Ao3)
-strength = research support = Milgram = conducted F scale on 20 obedience and 20 disobedient ppts. Those who were obedient scored higher on the F scale
-limitation = methodological limiations + cultural bias
Cannot explain the obedience behaviour of large masses of people. e.g those who obeyed the Nazi's in WW2 wont all have had the authoritarian personality
127
key notes = Zimbardo's stanford prison study
-overt controlled observation and participant sample
-only emotionally stable volunteers were used
-guards = were told to maintain order
-divide and rule tactic used to pin prisoners against eahcother
-guards harrasment of prisoners = highlighted the difference in soical roles
128
limitation of primary data
time consuming + requires a lot of input from the researcher
129
plastic use items linked to NSI and ISI
compliance/NSI = group norm is to care about the environment = people who go against this risk rejection
ISI/internalisation = people become convinced by evidence for the harmful effects of plastic item use upon the environment
130
more information on legitemacy of authority
based on a social heirachy
authority figures have the right to be allowed to exercise social power
setting up of order/system
131
limitations of legitmenacy of authority
alternative explanations
cultural differences in terms of respect for authority figures
132
Research support for the agentic state
-Blass and Schmitt (2010) = showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who was responsible
-students blamed the experimenter rather than ppts bc the experimenter is at the top of the hierachy
133
Limitation strength of legitimacy of authority = cultural differences
Replications of milgram's study showed different scores
e.g Kiham and Mann = in Austraillia only 16% obeyed but German ppts = 85%
showcase the difference in legitemate authority in different cultures
134
evaluation of authoritarian personality
Limitation = correlation not causation = cannot claim harsh parenting style and authoritarian personality
Cultural relativism + Bias in F scale
political bias = F scale = right wing not left wing like Maoism in China
135
How were Milgram and Zimbardo's ppts not protected fro harm
-Milgram = extreme stress, sweating, shaking etc
Zimbardo = disorganised thinking and behaviour
136
conform bc of normative social influence
prevent social rejection/isolation
leads to compliance = worrying says they are conflicted as they conform in group setting tho dont agree internally
137
obey the headteacher
bc in school there is a heirachal system in which the teacher is at the top = legitemacy of authority
lack of social support
138
social support + evaluation
"other person acts as a model" to enable the person to follow their own conscious thought.
Milgram's study = obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when there was a disobedient confederate
139
Limitation NSI and ISI
these work in tandem rather than separate processes = particualy in real life conformity
140
Asch asked ppts to write answers down rather than say out loud
conformity reduced to 12.5%
when 3 people = conformity rose to 31.8%
141
contradictory evidence = Asch
Neto = found women are likely to conform more than men since they are more concerned with social relationships
--> since Asch's sample only used male ppts this cannot be established
142
lack of realism in Zimbardo's study
Mohavedi and Banuziz = argued that ppts were merely performing a role rather than conforming to their expectations of what a prison environment would be like
However, Zimbardo combatted this by collecting quantiative data saying 90% of conversations were about prison life
143
% changes in Milgram's study
Yale = 65%
Run down office = 47.5%
teacher and learner in same room = 40%
Touch proximity = 30%
experiment orders on the phone = 20%
144
Evaluation of Milgram's variations
Strength = support = Bickman = confederates dress up in 3 diff outfits = milkmaid, jacket+tie, security officer. People are asked to do tasks like pick up litter. People dressed as security guard were more likely to obey
Demand characteristics in his variations = limitation
145
example of question asked on the F-scale
"Obedience and respect for authority are the two most important virtues children should learn"
childhood hostility = leads to displacement of fears onto those who tend to be weaker = scapegoating
146
not being felixible in the minority view
can be seen as being dogmatic/unbending = important to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
147
conclusion of Asch's line study
-conformity has been influenced by these variations
-most of the time people conformed due to normative social influence
148
Evaluation = Asch
modern replication = Perrin + Spencer = 1/396 conformed trials
Lack temporal validity - carried out during communist witch hunts - where conformity was a mode of survival - influenced by post war fears etc
Artificial task - guess aims - risk of demand characteristics - not a valid measure of real life conformity with people who are not strangers
149
Authoritarian personality
-2000 middle class white males
-Adorno’s F scale - used to study concept of antisemitism
-found that authoritarian personality began in childhood due to harsh and strict parenting
-those with and authoritian personality were prejudiced, expressive respect for those of higher power
-example of traits - conformist, dogmatic, hostile to those of lower perceived status
Strength - research support - Milgram and Elm - those who higher shocks = higher on F scale
Limitation - political bias
Limitation - cannot explain incidents like the holocaust where an immensely large amount of people conformed
Limitation - sample used = on white sample = ethnocentric
Role of other dispositional factors - middendorp and meleon found that less educated people are more likely than well educated people to display authoritarian characteristic
150
Discuss research into conformity and social roles
Zimbardo's prison study
151
two explanations of obedience accroding to Milgram of why people obey
-legitemacy authority = link to variation e.g in variations when experimenter wasnt wearing a lab coat obedience dropped to 20%
-agentic state = ppts not responsible for their actions
