social influence

Question 1

Asch 1951

Answer 1

baseline procedure, procedure to asses extent of conformity in unambiguous situation.
123 USA men in groups 6-8 confederates, match standard line to 3 comparison lines. 36% conformed, 25% never did.

Question 2

Asch 1955

Answer 2

variables affecting conformity, group size, unaminity (presence of non-conforming person, dissenter), task difficulty (ISI).

Question 3

Lucas et al 2006

Answer 3

asked ppts to solve maths problems, given false answers from 3 other “students”, ppts conformed more often when problems were harder, task difficulty support for Asch.

Question 4

Perrin and Spencer

Answer 4

limitation Asch study, social contect 1950’s anti-communist period in USA, influenced findings as people more scared to be different, lacks temporal validity, cannot generalise across time-periods.

Question 5

kelman 1958

Answer 5

suggested three ways of conformity,: internalisation, identification, compliance.

Question 6

Deutch and Gerard 1955

Answer 6

two-process theory about conformity, infomrational social influence and normative social influence.

Question 7

McGhee and Teevan 1967

Answer 7

nAffiliators, people greatly concerned with being liked by others, strong need for affiliation, more likely to conform. limitation for NSI as it effects others more than others, more complex and cannot be simplified to a model.

Question 8

Zimbardo 1973

Answer 8

Stanford prison experiment, mock prison in basement, 21 USA men who tested emotionally stable. randomly assigned to either guard or prisoner, ecnouraged to conform through uniform and instructions. guards abused prisoners, social roles have strong influence, easily adopted.

Question 9

movahedi 1975

Answer 9

participants in SPE simply acting rather than conforming to a role, performances based on stereotypes of behaviour. limited info about real conformity.

Question 10

McDermott 2019

Answer 10

ppts in SPE did behave as if it was real, 90% of prisoners conversations about prison life. discussed how it was impossible to leave the experimen, on prisoner thought it was a real one. SPE did replicate social roles of prisoners and guards, high degree of internal validity.

Question 11

Fromm 1973

Answer 11

zimbardo exaggerated power of social roles to influence behaviour, 1/3 guards behaved brutally, mosr resisted pressure to conform. Zimbardo minimised influence of dispositional factors (personality).

Question 12

Migram 1963

Answer 12

baseline procdure to assess obedience levels, 40 USA men “memory” study. drew lots to choose learner and teacher (fixed), experimenter in lab coat told T to give shock to L in different room (14-450V deadly), fake. 100% went 300V, 65% 450V, ppts showed extreme tension. E gave 4 standard prods to order T.

Question 13

Orne and Holland 1968

Answer 13

ppts behaved bc they didnt believe it was real, play acting

Question 14

Perry 2013

Answer 14

confrims idea that ppts knew Milgram’s experiment was false, listened to tapes, 1/2 believed shocks were real, demand characteristics to fulfill aims of the study.

Question 15

Sheridan and King 1972

Answer 15

replicated Milgrams study with a puppy, 54% of men and 100% of women gave “fatal shock”. genuine effects of Milgram.

Question 16

Haslam 2014

Answer 16

limitation of Milgram, ppts obeyed experimenter first 3 prods but disobeyed 4th one. Social Identity theory, only obeyed when identified with aims of study, when asked to obey authority figure they refused, SIT provides more valid interpretation.

Question 17

Bickman 1974

Answer 17

field experiment NYC, 3 confederates dressed in business wear, milkman outfit, security guard uniform. all stood in street and asked citizens to pick up litter or give penny for parking ticket, 2x likely to obey security guard. effect of situational variable of uniform.

Question 18

Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986

Answer 18

cross cultural replication of milgrams study in Dutch ppts. ordered to say stressful things in interview to confederate, 90% obeyed, when authority not present, it decreased.

Question 19

Smith and Bond 1998

Answer 19

only two replications in India and Jordan, collectivist. rest in individualistic cultures that have same notion about authority, not culturally generisable.

Question 20

Rank and Jacobson 1977

Answer 20

16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders drom doctor to administer excessive drug dose to patient, doctor authority figure, almost all remained autonomous, limitation agentic state, only account for some situations of obedience.

Question 21

Kilham and Mann 1974

Answer 21

only 16% AUS women went to 450V in Milgram replication.

Question 22

Mantell 1971

Answer 22

85% German participants went to 450v, strength of legitimacy of authority, useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

Question 23

Adorno et al

Answer 23

studied 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconsious attitudes towards other ethnic groups, F-scale used to measure Authoritarian Personality. Findings, authoritarian scoring ppts identified w strong ppl, contemtuous of the weak, obedient traits, black and white thinking (cognitive style). +ve correlation authoritarianism and prejudice.

Question 24

Elms and Milgram 1966

Answer 24

interviewed 20 baseline ppts that were fully obedient, all completed f-scale, scored higher than non-obedient control group, supports Adornos association between obedience and authoritarianism.

Question 25

Christie + Jahoda 1954

Answer 25

f-scale only measures tendency towards extreme form of right-wing ideology, potentially biased interpretation of authoritarian personality, both extreme left and right wing emphasise importance of complete obedience to political authority. limits Adorno dispositional explanation.

Question 26

Albrecht et al 2006

Answer 26

evaluated teen programme to help pregnant teens 14-19 resist pressure to smoke, 8 weeks. social support given by older mentor, less likely to smoke than control group. strenght for social support.

Question 27

Gamson et al 1982

Answer 27

support dissenting peers in resisting obedience, ppts produce evidence to help oil company run smear campaign, higher levels of resistance than milgram, ppts in groups so could discuss actions. 88% rebelled. undermine legitimacy of an authority figure.

Question 28

Rotter 1966

Answer 28

locus of control, internal believe things that happen to them controlled by themselves, more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey, external believe things that happen are out of their control.

Question 29

Holland 1967

Answer 29

repeated milgrams baseline study and measured if ppts were internals or externals, 37% internals didnt go 450v, only 23% externals didnt go 450v, shows link of LOC and disobedience.

Question 30

twenge et al 2004

Answer 30

analyzed data from usa LOC studies 40year period , over time people more resistant to obedience but also more external, would expect otherwise. contradics rotters LOC theory.

Question 31

Moscovici 1969

Answer 31

minority influence, consistency, group of 6 ppts asked to view set of 36 blue coloured slides (different shades), asked to state if blue or green, 2 conf in each group who said green, ppts said green 8%. 2nd group, inconsistent minority (blue 12, green 24), agreement 1.25%. importance of consistency.

Question 32

Nemeth 1986

Answer 32

flexibility in minority influence, ppts groups 4 (1 conf) had to agree on amount of compensation given to victim of ski-lift accident. 1. minority argued for low rate, refused to change position (inflexible), no influence on majority. 2. minority argued for low rate, compromised offering slightly higher (flexible) majority compromised and changed.

Question 33

martin et al 2003

Answer 33

message supporting particular viewpount, measured ppts agreement, 1 group ppts heard minority group agree with initial view 2nd group heard majority agree. ppts less willing to change if they had listened to minority, supports deeper processing more enduring effect, supports minority influence.

Question 34

nolan et al 2008

Answer 34

aimed to see if they could change peoples energy use habits, hung messages on front doors every week 1 month, stating most residents trying to reduce use. control, only mesage about saving, no other groups. first group decreased use. conformity minority influence can lead to social change, normative social influence.

Question 36

foxcroft et al 2015

Answer 36

reviewed social norms interventions, 70 studies where social norms approach used to reduce alcohol use, only small reduction in drinking quantity, no effect on frequency, normative social influence doesnt always produce long-term social change.

Question 37

nemeth 2009

Answer 37

claims social change due to type of thinking that minorities inspire, engage in divergent thinking, broader, thinker activley searches for information and weighs up more options, leads to better decisions and more creative solutions. dissenting minorities are valuable, stimulate new ideas. strenth of minority influence.

Question 38

mackie 1986

Answer 38

disagrees with role of deeper processing, minority influence may create deeper processing if dont share views, forced to think about others arguments and reasonings.