social influence

Question 1

what is conformity?

Answer 1

change in a person’s behaviour/ opinions as a result of real/ imagined pressure from a person/ group

Question 2

what are the types of conformity and what are some examples?

Answer 2

-compliance: superficial + temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with majority view but privately disagree (only lasts when group monitors, temporary)- eg: alone at Chinese restaurant, doesn’t want to eat with chopsticks but feeling too awkward to ask for a fork
-identification: acting in same way as group due to having desire to fit in but doesn’t agree with majority privately- eg: being forced to try something by your friends even if you don’t think you will like it/ don’t want to
-internalisation: changing behaviour + beliefs as we believe group is correct (permanent)- eg: slowing down to speed zone as we think that is the correct speed in that zone

Question 3

what are some explanations of conformity?

Answer 3

-informational social influence (ISI): believing opinion + accepting it’s correct (can lead to internalisation)- eg: on first day of job, you see if people go home in their uniforms as they should know the correct answer
-normative social influence (NSI): agreeing with opinion of majority in order to be accepted (can lead to compliance)- eg: new student looking around to see if others put their hand up to be socially accepted

Question 4

what are some evaluations of conformity?

Answer 4

A) research support for ISI: Lucas (2006) giving students maths problems, higher conformity to incorrect answers when more difficult- show students conform in situations where they are unsure of the answer, assuming others are right due to confidence levels
A) research support for NSI: Asch (1951) many people purposely went for the wrong answer to feel socially accepted due to being self conscious about being judged
C) individual differences in ISI: Perrin + Spencer (1980) study with science + engineering students + found little conformity- ISI doesn’t effect everyone’s social behaviour
C) individual differences in NSI: people who are less concerned about being liked will be less effected by NSI- more about confidence levels
C) ISI + NSI: hard to distinguish

Question 5

what were the factors effecting conformity that Asch found in his research?

Answer 5

• situational: social situation person is in
• dispositional: person’s internal characteristics

Question 6

what was Asch’s experiment?
(aim, method, results, conclusion)

Answer 6

-aim: Asch developed procedures to assess how much people will conform to opinion of others when answer is certain
-method: participants see image with lines + say which lengths are the same- participant doesn’t know other members in experiment aren’t being studied and purposely getting the answer wrong to throw off the participants to try to get them to conform
-results: participant will most likely conform due to NSI or ISI
-conclusion: participant will conform to majorities beliefs to be socially accepted even if they don’t agree with group

Question 7

what were the variations Asch found in his research?

Answer 7

-group size: bigger group= more conformity
-unamity: easier for participant to resist pressure with dissenter (someone who disagrees with group)
-task difficulty: more difficulty= more conformity

Question 8

what is the evaluation of Asch’s research?

Answer 8

C) Perin + Spencer repeated the experiment with engineering students in UK (1980) where 1 conformed in 396 trials- individual differences can effect results
C) common factor Asch found, more confidence= less conformity- effects validity of results
C) Asch only tested men, Eagley + Carla (1981) ran meta analysis + found differences between males + females were inconsistent, Eagely also argued men and women’s difference in social roles explain difference in conformity- conformity lacks consistency

Question 9

what did Zimbardo find out with social roles in conformity?

Answer 9

social roles are the parts people play as members of social situations (expectations and behaviour of role eg: teacher/ child)- if asked, someone would adopt to this role

Question 10

what was Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment?
(aim, method, results, conclusion)

Answer 10

-aim: seeing if prison guards behave brutally due to their personality/ social situation they are in
-method: Zimbardo gave uni students either the role of a prison guard or a prisoner to see how their behaviour alters in a situation by conforming to social roles- all male students
-results: both conditions began to adopt to their role (prison guards got more aggressive and prisoners tried to escape)- experiment lasted 6 days as someone left, meant to be 2 week experiment
-conclusion: their social situation as well as their own stereotypical idea of how their role should be played

Question 11

what is the evaluation of Zimbardo’s research into conformity to social roles?

Answer 11

A) controlled: researchers had some control over variables like individual differences since all of the participants were emotionally stable individuals - increases validity so that there is more reliability withdrawing conclusions about influence on behaviour
C) lack of realism: Banuazizi + Mohavedi (1975) said participants were just ‘play acting’ as their performances were based on stereotypes- Zimbardo pointed out evidence that situation felt real to participants since he used quantitative data (showed 90% conversations about prison life), giving study high internal validity
C) role of dispositional influences: Fromm (1973) said Zimbardo was exaggerating power of situation to influence behaviour and minimise dispositional influences ( role of personality factors), eg: only a minority of guards behaved brutally- suggest Zimbardo’s conclusion (participants were conforming to social roles) may be exaggerated since difference in guards behaviour indicate they will exercise right and wrong choices despite situation

Question 12

what is obedience?

Answer 12

form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order

Question 13

what was Milgram’s study of obedience?
(aim, method, results, conclusion)

Answer 13

-aim: wanting to find out why so many followed orders of Hitler during Holocaust
-method: give participant a shock box and list of questions, ask participant to ask ‘learner’ questions behind door (participant doesn’t know learner isn’t involved), if ‘learner’ gets question wrong, ‘teacher’ shocks them, voltage increases after each wrong question- learner screams in pain until 450 v where no noise is made (experimenter enforces ‘teacher’ to continue
-results: 64% of all men they experimented on went to 450v
-conclusion: people will obey to someone of higher authority/ those they may trust their judgement even if situation is bad because they believe that is what the person with authority wants them to do

Question 14

what were some of the issues with Milgram’s experiment? (evaluation)

Answer 14

C) internal validity: some didn’t believe it/ thought the room looked fake
A) external validity: conducted in lab conditions and how findings apply to a real life setting (relationship between participant and experimenter)- would be higher if it wasn’t an artificial environment

Question 15

What were some of Milgram’s obedience variables he found with his experiment?

Answer 15

• dispositional factors: relate to personality of individual
• psychological factors: relate to influence of others on individual behaviour
• situational variables
  - proximity: teacher and learner in same room (obedience rate decreased from 65%- 40%), teacher forced learners hand onto ‘electroshock plate’ (obedience rate decreased to 30%), teacher left the room and gave remote instructions (obedience are decreased to 20.5%)
  - location: run down building rather than uni (obedience rate decreased to 47.5%)
  - uniform: experimenter called away and member of public took over (obedience rate decreased to 20%)

Question 16

what are some evaluation points of situational variables?

Answer 16

A) research support: Bickman (1974) 3 outfits (jacket and tie, milkman outfit, security guard uniform) and asked strangers to perform tasks, twice as likely to obey security guard- situational variable (uniform) have powerful effect on obedience
A) cross cultural replication: Meeus and Raajmakers (1986) participants ordered to say stressful things in interview to someone desperate for a job (90% obeyed), also replicated proximity by person giving orders while not being present which decreased obedience- obedience not related to certain individuals but valid for anyone
counterpoint: Smith and Bond (1998) identified 2 replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in India and Jordan ( culturally different to US)- might not be appropriate to conclude Milgram’;s findings on situational variables as it’s not exactly representable
C) internal validity: participants may be aware procedure was fake- unclear if findings are genuine as participants may have seen through deception but followed along (demand characteristics)

Question 17

what are some dispositional explanations in obedience?

Answer 17

authoritarian personality:
- Adorno wanted to understand anti-semitism (anti jewish) of holocaust
- procedure (1950): 2000 middle class white Americans and attitudes towards racial groups using facism (form of government with strong people as weak and worthless- government usually totalitarian (when political systems control all public behaviour and as much private behaviour possible) and authoritarian (demanding that people obey and refuse freedom in their actions))
- characteristics of personality:” obedient to authority and everything is seen as right or wrong
- personality origin: formed in childhood from harsh parenting

Question 18

what are some evaluation points on the dispositional explanations of obedience?

Answer 18

A) research support: thought their must be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality
counterpoint: impossible to draw conclusion as they are not directly linked
C) limited explanation: individual differences effect how to generalise it- clear an alternative explanation is more realistic (social identity explains obedience)
C) political bias: f-scale has form of right wing ideology (biased interpretation)- not comprehensive dispositional explanation for obedience to authority across whole political spectrum

Question 19

what are the psychological explanations of obedience?

Answer 19

• autonomous state: individual has complete control and are responsible for their own actions
• agent state: obeying an authority figure and no longer see their self responsible for behaviour
• binding factors: person ignores/ minimises effect of behaviour to shift responsibility and feel less guilty
• legitimacy of authority: socialised from early age to accept hierarchy of power exists

Question 20

what is the evaluation points for psychological explanations of obedience?

Answer 20

A) research support: Class and Schmitt (2001) showed students film and asks the to identify who was responsible for harm of learner- recognised legitimate authority as cause of obedience
C) limited explanation: agents shift doesn’t explain research findings as it only predicts they understand role when they actually don’t
A) cultural differences: Kilham and Mahn (1974) replicated Milgram’s experiment and 16% went to 450v; in Germany, 85% obeyed (show some cultures authority accepted as legitimate and some raise children differently)- cross cultural research increases validity

Question 21

what is resisting social influence?

Answer 21

ability of people to withstand social pressure to conform to majority/ obey authority- influenced by both dispositional and situational factors

Question 22

what is locus of control

Answer 22

• people resisting pressure to conform/ obey because of their personality
• Rotter (1966): proposed idea of LOC extent to which people believe they have control over their lives:
  
  • internal LOC: people believe things happen to themselves as they let it happen; describes extent individual feels in control of what happens to them and extent to which they as an individual can effect their life
  • external LOC: people tend to believe the things that happen are outside of their control; describes someone who believes what happens to them is down to luck/ fate and they are not in control of their life- due to external forces (people)
  • LOC continuum: will always vary and never be at same time

Question 23

How does LOC lead to resistance in social influence?

Answer 23

• people who have internal LOC are more likely to resist to conformity and obedience- base decisions on own beliefs
• high LOC: more confident, more achievement orientated, highly intelligent and have less need for social approval

Question 24

what are some evaluation points of LOC?

Answer 24

A) research support: Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internal/ external- increases validity of LOC explanation for resistance to social influence
C) contradictory research: Twenge (2004) analysed data from Americans LOC studies conducted over 40 years (data showed over time people has become more resistant to obedience but more were external)-LOC not valid explanation of how people resist social influence
C) limited role of LOC: Rotter (1982) points out LOC is not important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence and claims role of LOC depends on situation and it only significantly affects behaviour in new situations- saying if you have conformed/ obeyed in specific situation in past, chances are you will do it again regardless of which LOC

Question 25

what is social support and how is it linked as an explanation to resisting social influence?

Answer 25

• presence of other people who resist pressures to conform/ obey can help others do the same
• people act as role models to show others resistance to social influence is possible
• individuals who have support for their point of view are more likely to disobey orders and not conform
• resisting conformity: pressure to conform can be resisted if there are other people present who are not conforming (ally)- helps build confidence and allow individual to remain independent
• resisting obedience: pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person who is seen to be disobedience- Milgram study obedience decreased from 65%-10% when disobedience confederate was present
• participant may not necessarily follow disobedient person’s behaviour but disobedience of person acts as model of dissent for participant to copy

Question 26

what are some evaluation points for social support when resisting social influence?

Answer 26

A) research support on conformity: supports role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity, Allen and Levine (1971) conformity decreased when dissenter present in Asch type study- supports view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of pressure from group
A) research support on obedience: Gameson (1982) higher resistance levels in study than Milgram (put participants in room to perform task), 29/33 participants rebelled- shows peer support is linked to greater resistance

Question 27

what is minority influence?

Answer 27

situations where one small person/ group influences he beliefs of other people

Question 28

what was Moscovisi’s research on minority influence?

Answer 28

minority change:
- consistency: consistency in minority’s view increases the amount of interest from other people (consistency might be agreement between people in minority group)- such consistency makes other people start to rethink their own views
- commitment: sometimes minorities engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their views, it’s important these activities are at some risk to minority because this demonstrated commitment to cause- majority group members then pay more attention
- flexibility: being extremely constant and rigid can be off putting and difficult to change opinions of majority- members of minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept counter arguments

Question 29

what is the process of change in minority influence?

Answer 29

• snowball effect: increasing number of majority switch to minority as they have been converted
• gradually minority view becomes majority

Question 30

what was Moscovisi’s study with minority influence?
(aim, method, results, conclusion)

Answer 30

-aim: wanted to see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to have an incorrect answer in a colour perception test
-method: consisted of 172 American female participants, told they were taking part in a colour perceptions test, places in groups of 6 and shown 36 slides varying go shades of blue and stated colours out loud (condition A: constantly saying they were green, condition B: inconsistently saying 24 slides were green and 12 were blue
- results: consistent condition showed real participants agreed in 8.2% trials, inconsistent condition showed real participants agreed on 1.25% trials
- conclusion: consistency is important factor in minority influence

Question 31

what are the evaluation points of minority influence?

Answer 31

A) research support for consistency: Moscovici’s study- shows consistency is important factor
A) research support for deeper processing: Martin (2009) presented message following particular viewpoint and measures participants agreement (condition A: minority group agreed, condition B: majority group agreed), participants then exposed to conflicting view (people less willing to change if listening to minority over)- suggests minority message has been deeply processed and has deeper effect
C) artificial task: Moscovici’s colour perception test, research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majority in real life- means findings of majority influence studies lack external validity and are limited in what they tell us about how minority influence works in real life

Question 32

what are the steps to social change?

Answer 32

1) drawing attention through social proof
2) consistency
3) deeper processing (thinking deeply about meaning behind issue)
4) augmentation principle (paying more attention to minority)
5) snowball effect
6) social cryptomnesia (change occurred but people can’t remembered how)

Question 33

what are the evaluation points for social change?

Answer 33

A) research support for NSI: Nolan (2008) hung messages on saving energy on front doors of houses in San Diego (condition A: residents trying to reduce energy, condition B: save energy), decrease in energy in A not B- shows conformity can lead to social change through NSI
A) minority influence explains change: Nemeth (2009) claims social change is due to type of thinking minorities inspire (minority arguments engage divert thinking), broad thinking where thinker activity searches for more info and weighs options, Nemeth argues searches for better decisions and creative solutions to social issues- shows why dissenting minorities are values and how they stimulate new ideas in way minorities can’t
C) role of deeper processing: people are meant to think deeply about minority views, Mackie (1987) disagrees and presents evidence that majority influences may create deeper processing if you don’t share same views as we are likely to believe other people share views and thinks same way as us - means minority influence has been challenged as we doubt it’s validity as an explanation of social change