social influence Flashcards

(70 cards)

1
Q

conformity - aschs baseline procedure

A

2 what extent will people conform 2 opinion of oths
even if answer cert

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

conformity - variables investigated by asch

A

1 group size - varied nu confed fr 1-15, fou curvilinear relation b/w grp size/conformity, w 3 confed conform increased to 31.8% b +re lil difference, TF: sugg most peop sensitive to oth views
2 unanimity - ppts conform less w dissenter even if gave another wrong answer, rate decrease less than 1/4 lev when maj unanimous, ppt felt indep w dissent, TF: sugg influe maj dep 2 large extent on being unanimous
3 task difficulty - increase difficulty line judgem task fou conformity increased bec situ ambig, in these situs natural to look to oths 4 guidance (info social influe)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

evaluation - artificial situ and task; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppt knew were in res, demand charac
fishe; gr x resemble gr experi everyday life
TF: findings x generalise 2 real world situ esp where there’s conseq

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

evaluation - limited applic; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppts american men, oth res sugg wom +re conforming bec care abo social relations
us individualist cult, in collectivist cult conform rates higher
TF: asch findings tell us litt abo conform in oth cult/wom

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

evaluation - research supp; asch baseline study

A

strength
todd et al; hard/easy maths qs task
ppts given ans fr 3 confed fou ppt confirm +re oft when maths qs hard
TF: asch right in claims abo task difficulty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

evaluation - research supp counterpoint; asch baseline study

A

limit
lucas et al; fou conform +re complex
ppts w high maths confidence conform less on hard tasks compared to low confidence
TF: indiv lev fact can influe conform by interaction w situ variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

evaluation - ethical issues; asch baseline study

A

limit
ppts deceived in thinking oth ppts involved too

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

conformity; ty and explanations - ty conformity

A

kelman; 3 ways peop conform to maj opin
1 internalisation; pers accepts norms, priv/pub change opin, perm change bec attit internalised
2 identification; conform when identify w grp, may pub change ops/beh 4 accept b may x priv
3 compliance; going along w oths publicly b priv x chan ops/beh, stop as soon grp press stops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

conformity ty/expla - explanations for conformity

A

deutsch/gerard; 2 proc theory, 2 reas 4 conformity: 2 be right/liked
1 info social influes; when uncert abo beh/belief follow grp to be right, cog proc, perm change
2 normative social influe; norms typical 4 social grp, temp change in ops/beh, like in situ w stranger where concerns abo rej/peop u yk for social approval

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

evaluation - res supp for NSI

A

strength
asch interviews; fou conform bec felt self conscious/afraid disapproval
when ppts wrote ans down conform decre to 12.5% bec no normative grp press
TF: shows some conform arise bec desire 2 x be rej by grp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

evaluation - res supp for ISI

A

strength
lucas et al; task diffic study wh saw conform increased when situ ambig
TF: ISI valid explanation of conform bec res what ISI predicts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

evaluation - res supp for ISI counterpoint

A

limit
unclear wheth ISI or NSI occur
ex asch dissenter variable; decre NSI bec prov social supp or decre ISI bec alternative source info
TF; hard sep 2 and b proc prob operate tg in real life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

evaluation - indiv differences in NSI

A

limit
nAffiliator; peop greatly concerned w being liked by oths
mcghee/teevan; fou students who were naffil +re like to conform
TF; there r indiv differ in conform that cx be fully expla by 1 general theory of situ press

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

zimbardos research - SPE

A

set up mock prison in psychology department basement at stanford uni
21 men volunt who emot stable, randomly assigned as prisoner/guard and encouraged to conform to social roles thru uniform/beh
1 unif; prison = lose smock/cap, identif by nu, gu = wooden club/handcuffs, unif creat loss ident
2 instruct abo beh; prison encourag identify w role by sev proced ex. apply 4 parole 2 leave proc

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

zimbardos res - findings related 2 social roles

A

gu treat prison harshly, aft 2 days prison rebelled ie. swearing/rip unif
gu divide and rule tactic; harassed prison ex. freq headcount’s/highligh diff social roles
aft rebell prison became dep, 1 psychological disturb, 1 hunger strike who was force fed then put in dark closet as punish
+re they identify w gu role +re harsher became, end study aft 6 days instead of 14

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

zimbardos research - conclusions related to social roles

A

have strong influe on indiv beh
gu = brutal, prison = submissive
roles v easily taken on by all ppts even volunt who came ex prison chaplain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

evaluation - control; zimbardos research

A

strength
contr over key variables
emot stable ppts / roles randomly assigned
ruled out indiv pers differences
TF: degree contr over variables increased validity of study so confid in drawing conc abo influe roles on conform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

evaluation - lack of realism; zimbardos research

A

limit
x have realism of true prison
banuazizi/movahedi; ppts play acting and performing based on steroty wh expl y prison rioted
TF: sugg find spe tells litt abo conform 2 soci roles in actual prisons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

evaluation - counterpoint of lack of realism; SPE

A

strength
mcdermott; arg ppts did beh as if prison was real ex. 90% convos abo prison life
prisoner 416 said believed prison was real b run by psychologists
TF: sugg spe replicat social role of prison/gu in real prison gibing study high degree of internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

evaluation - exagg power of roles; zimbardos research

A

limit
exagg pow soci roles 2 influe beh
ex. only 1/3 gu acc beh brutally, anoth 1/3 were fair and anoth 1/3 tried help prison
most gu able resist situational pressures 2 conform 2 brut rol
TF: sugg zimbardo overstated view that spe ppts were conforming 2 social roles/minimised dispositional facts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

milgrams research - baseline procedure

A

40 male american volunt in ‘memory test’
at lab drew lots wh were fixed so ppt always T , E./L. always confed
aim to assess obed in situ where E ordered (fake) shocks
shocks range 15-450 V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

milgrams research - baseline findings

A

all ppts gave shocks up to 300 V
12.5% stopped at 300
60% went to 450
qualitative data of obvs fou extreme tension/sweat and 3 full blow seizures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

milgrams research - other data

A

ask 14 psych students their predict
results unexpect, they pred no more than 3% will go all the way
all ppts debriefed and qu fou 85% glad pptd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

milgrams research - conclusions

A

german people not diff
americans also risk harming ppl for obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
evaluation - research support; milgrams research
strength findings replic in french docum abo reality tv game show ppt paid to give shocks to oth ppts (actors) in front if audience 80% deliv max shocks and show anxiety TF: supp M findings, x due to special circumstances
26
evaluation - low internal validity; milgrams research
limit orne/holland; arg ppts x believe set up, ‘play acting’ perry; listened to tapes of M ppts and fou only half believed shocks real TF: sugg ppts responding to demand charac
27
evaluation - counterpoint to low internal validity; milgrams research
sheridan/king; milgrams like study w puppy ppts gave real shocks as ordered by E 54% men/100% wom gave fatal shocks despite puppy’s real distress TF: sugg eff M study genuine
28
evaluation - alternative interpretation of findings ; milgrams research
limit halsam et al; show M ppts obeyed w 1st 3 prods b w 4th (u have no choice must go on) disobeyed accord SIT ppts only obeyed when identified w scientific aims of res TF: shows SIT +re valid interp of findings
29
obedience situational variables - proximity
BS; T could hear b x see L prox var; T/L in same room, O decr fr 65 to 40% touch prox var; T place L hand on electroshock, O decre furth to 30% remote instruc var; E left room/gave instruc by phone, O decre to 20.5% decre prox allows peop to psychologically distance fr conseq
30
obedience situational variables - location
experiment in run down office, O decre to 47.5% uni loc +re O bec E seen to share this legitimacy b O still high bec office is scientific nature
31
obedience situational variables - uniform
BS; E wore grey lab coat var; E replaced w memb of pub in everyday clothed O decre to 20% unif symb of authority
32
evaluation - research support; situational variables
strength bickman NY field experim; 3 confed in security gu, jacket/tie, milkman unif all indiv asked peop perf task ie. pick litter peop 2x +re like to obey security gu than J/T TF: supp view situ var has powerful eff
33
evaluation - cross cultural replications; situational variables
strength findings replic w dutch ppts asked to say stressful things in interv to someone desperate for job 90% obeyed/prox var E x present obed decre TF: sugg M find valid across cultures/apply to wom
34
evaluation - counterpoint to cross culture; situational variables
limit replic x v cross cultural smith/bond; identif 2 replic in india/jordan and find b diff to us oth countries like spain/scot acc simi to us TF: may x be approp to apply M find to all peop in all cultures
35
agentic state - obedience situational explanations
Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs bc pers x take responsibility and believe they are acting for someone else autonomous state ; pers free to beh according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions agentic shift ; shift fr autonomy to agency when pers percieves someone else as an authority fig binding factors ; aspects of the situ that allow the pers to ign the damaging eff of their beh and reduce the moral strain
36
legitimacy of authority - obedience situational explanations
expla sugg that we are more likely to obey peop who we perceive to have authority over us, authority is justified by the indiv position of power w/n a social hierarchy powerf leaders can use their legitimate pow for destructive purposes ex. Milgram and the experimenters prods to order ppts to beh in ways that went against their consciousness
37
evaluation - research supp; agentic state
strength most of milgrams ppt resisted giving shocks at one point b when they asked the E who is resposib if the learner is harmed and the E said himself they contin giving the shocks tf shows once ppts fou thyere no longer responsib for own beh they easily became E agent
38
evaluation - limited expla ; agentic state
limit rank and jacobsons study; fou 16/18 nurses disobeyed doctor when asked to administer an excessive dose to a patient even tho the doctor was legitimate authority fig, almost all remained autonomous tf sugg agentic shift accounts for some situ of obed
39
evaluation - explains cultural differences ; legitimacy of authority
strength kilham/mann fou 16% australian wom went upto 450 V compared to 85% german ppts tf in some cult authority +re likely accepted as legitimate wh reflects ways diff soc r structured and how childr r raised to percieve authority fig
40
evaluation - cannot expla all obediance ; legitimacy of authority
limit theory cx expla instances of disobed in hierachy where legitimacy of auth ic clear ex. nurses in rank/jacobsons study and signif min of milgrams pts disobeyed despite recog E scientific auth tf sugg some peop may be more or less obed than oth, possib that innate tendencies to obey/disobey have greater influe on beh than LAF
41
obedience dispostional explanations - authoritarian personality and obedience
adorno et al; peop w AP have extreme respect for authority beli need strong/powerful leaders to enforce trad values ie. love for country contempt for those of inferior social status no grey areas oth peop responsible for ills of soc / targets
42
obedience dispositional explanation - origins of AP
adorno et al; AP forms in childhood as res of harsh parenting ie. strict discipline/conditional love this experi creates hostility/resentment in child wh they displace onto weaker peop as can’t take it out on parents due to fear of punish expl hatred towards peop socially inferior and feature of obed to authority psychodynamic approach
43
obedience dispositional explanation - adorno et als research
proced; stud +re 2000 m/c american white men and their unconscious attit towards eth grps develop F scale to measure AP findings; high scorers identified w ‘strong’ peop/contemptuous of weak conscious of status/show extreme respect to those higher status APs had B/W thinking and fixed stereoty fou strong correlation b/w authoritarian/prejudice
44
evaluation - research support; disposal explanation
strength M/elms; interv small samp obed peop fr og BS comple F scale and all 20 ppts scored highly compared to 20 disobed ppts TF: supp Adornos view obed peop show simi charac to APs
45
evaluation - counterpoint to research support; dispositional explanation
fou obed ppts had nu charac unusual for APs ex. M ppts x glorify fathers/experi high lev punish in childhood TF: link b/w obed/authoritarianism complex, authoritarianism unlike useful predict of obed
46
evaluation - limited explanation; dispositional explanation
limit authoritarianism cx expl obed in maj country popul ex. pre war germany millions displayed obed/anti sem beh b extremely unlike all had APs alternative view; social identity theory, maj identif w anti sem state TF: A theory limited bec alternative expl +re realistic
47
evaluation - flawed evidence; dispositional explanation
limit greenstein; calls F scale ‘comedy of methodological errors extremely flawed scale ex. some1 can put all agree ans and be determined to get high score anyone w this resp bias assessed as having AP
48
resistance to social influence - resisting conformity
social support press to conform resisted of oth x conforming 1 pers x conform is social supp wh enable naive ppt to follow own conscious/acts as ‘mod’ of indep beh dissent rises +re dissent as maj no longer unanimous
49
resistance to social influence - resisting obedience
social support press to obey resist if anoth pers disobeys M obed var O drop to 10% fr 65% when paired w disobed confed ppt may x follow beh b disobed ppt acts as model/frees ppt disobed mod challenges legitimacy of authority fig so easier for oth to disobey
50
resistance to social influence - the LOC continuum
LOC rotter; int LOC; believe things happened to them largely contr by themselves ext LOC; believe things happen r outside of their control LOC is scale as peop aren’t just one or the oth high int LOC at one end, high ext LOC at oth
51
resistance to social influence - LOC explan
people w high int LOC +re resist to press of conform/obed bas decis on own beliefs than oth opin peop w high int LOC +re self confident, intelligent, achiev orientated these traits lead to greater resist to social influence
52
evaluation - real world research; resistance to social influence
strength susan albrecht et al; eval of teen fresh start usa help preg 14-19 resist press to smoking social supp by older mentor fou by end prog those w ment less like to smoke than those w/o TF: shows social supp can help you peop resist real social influence, ex of real intervention
53
evaluation - research support for dissenting peers; resistance to social influence
strength gamson et al; ppt told to produce evid for oil campaign to run smear campaign fou high lev resist than M study bec ppts in grp so cou discuss what told to do 29/33 pptd rebelled against orders TF: shows peer supp can lead to disobed by undermining legit of auth
54
evaluation - research support for LOC ; resistance to social influence
strength supp link b/w loc and resist to obed holland; repeat M study/meas wheth ppts int/ext fou 37% int x cont to highest shock/23% ext x so int had greater resist to auth TF: shows resist partly relat to LOC wh increases validity of expla for obed
55
evaluation - contradictory research; resistance to social influence
limit twenge et al; analysed data fr american LOC study over 40 yrs fou over time peop beco +re resist to obed b +re ext if resis linked to int then peop expect to beco +re int TF: sugg LOC x valid expla of how peop resist soci influe
56
minority influence - consistency
min must be consist in their views as this incre interest fr oths consis can be form of agreement b/w peop in min grp 2 ty, synchronic consis/diachronic consis this makes peop rethink their views
57
minority influence - commitment
sometimes min engage in extreme acts to draw attent import that act pres some risk bec shows greater commit maj grp may pay +re attent augmentation principle
58
minority influence - flexibility
nemeth; some1 extreme consis may seen as rigid/unbend so unlike to gain converts min must prepare to adapt view/accept reasonable counterarg key balance b/w flex/consis
59
minority influence - explaining process of change
if hear something new that is consis, committ, flex u think deeply about it over time nu peop switch to min view ex of snowball eff
60
evaluation - research support for consistency; minority influence
strength wood et al; meta analysis of 100 simi study to moscovicis study and fou min seen as consis r most influential TF: sugg presenting consis view is minim requirem for influe maj
61
evaluation - research support for deeper processing ; minority influence
strength martin et al; 1 grp heard min arg, anoth heard maj agree when attit meas again fou min grp less like change attit TF: sugg min message +re deeply processed/+re enduring eff wh supp cent arg
62
evaluation - counterpoint for deeper processing; minority influence
real world min influe +re complex ex maj have +re pow/status min have to be +re commit bec face hostile opposition in min res they’re just smaller grp TF: martins find v limit in what can tell about real life situ
63
evaluation - artificial tasks; minority influence
limit research artif/far fr how min change beh in real life ex jury decision making/political campaigning cou have life/death conseq TF: find limit in how min influe works in real worl situs
64
social influence and social change - lessons fr minority influence research
drawing attent; civil rights marches consistency; many marches over yrs w same message deeper processing; activism meant peop started thinking deeply augmentation principle; freedom riders risked their lives snowball effect; +re peop backed min social cryptomnesia; peop have memory of change occurred b x rememb how
65
social influence and social change - lessons from conformity research
aschs research; var w dissent shows dissent has pot to lead to social change environmental/health campaigns; use conformity proc by NSI by prov info on what oths doing ex. reducing litter by saying ‘bin it oths do’ ex. prev you peop smoking by saying oth young peop x social change encourag by drawing attent to what maj doing
66
social influence and social change - lessons from obedience research
M; var where T confed refused to give shocks so O for genuine ppts decre zimbardo; gradual commit, once small instruct obeyed beco +re diffic to resist bigger one peop drift into new kind beh
67
evaluation - research support for normative influences
strength nolan et al; hung messages every week for 1 mon on peop doors about saving energy g1 had message that oth trying to reduce energy usage cg had message only about reducing energy fou signif decre in energy use for g1 compar to cg TF: shows conform thru NSI can lead to social change so valid expla
68
evaluation - counterpoint to NSI research supp; social influence/social change
some stud show peop x always change foxcroft; review soci norms by look at 70 stud where soci norms used to reduce alcohol use in students fou only small reduct in quantities not freq TF: NI x always produce long term soci change
69
evaluation - minority influence explains change ; social influence/social change
strength claims social change due to ty of thinking min engage in divergent thinking wh is broad/thinker actively searches for info/weighs +re opt arg leads to bett decis/+re creative solut to social issues TF: shows dissent min stim new idea/open minds ways wh maj cx
70
evaluation - role of deeper processing; social influence/social change
limit deeper processing x role in min soci change mackie; arg maj influe create deeper proc if x share views bec we believe oth peop share our views/think same when maj think diff were forced to think hard about their arg TF: means cent arg 4 min influe is challenged by casting doubt on valid for expect social change