Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Percentage of fully obedient participants in the Milgram variation of location?

Answer 1

In a run down office block 47.5%

Answer 2

Experimenter played by ‘member of the public’ 20%

Answer 3

Research support • Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational variables on obedience • Bickman (1974) • Conducted a field experiment in New York City • Three confederates were dressed in different outfits: Jacket and Tie, milkman’s outfit and security guard’s uniform • Confederates stood in the street and asked passers by to perform tasks such as pick up litter • People were twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ than the man in a shirt and tie • This supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and produce obedience Control of variables in Milgram’s variations • A strength is that Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time (e.g. Proximity) to see what effect it had on obedience levels • All the other procedures and variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over with more than 1000 participants in total • This increases the internal validity as we have more certainty what is affecting the DV

Answer 4

Social sensitivity • Milgram’s findings from his variations support a situational explanation of obedience • Proximity, uniform and location all influence obedience • This has been criticised as it offers an excuse for evil behaviour • It may be offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control Lack of internal validity • A criticism of Milgram’s original study was that participants knew it was fake • This is even more likely with the extra manipulation • E.g. the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a member of the public • Even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived, some participants may have worked out the truth • This is a limitation as it's unclear whether the results are due to obedience or demand characteristics

Answer 5

Agency theory Legitimacy of authority

Answer 6

Agentic state Autonomous state

Answer 7

When an individual obeys an authority figure and gives up some free will • See themselves as an agent of the authority figure giving the order • The authority figure is seen as responsible for the consequences of the individual’s actions • A person becomes de-individuated, losing their sense of individuality • May obey orders that go against their moral code as they don’t see themselves as responsible for their behaviour • The agent experiences high anxiety (Moral strain) – they realise what they’re doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey

Answer 8

Opposite of being in an Agentic state • Autonomy means to be independent or free • Person in this state is free to behave according to their own principles • Individual has control • See themselves as personally responsible for their actions

Answer 9

The shift from autonomy to agency is called the agentic shift • Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority • This other person has greater powers because of their position in a social hierarchy • In most social groups when one person is in charge, others defer to this person and shift from autonomy to agency •

Answer 10

Research support Milgram (1974) • Carried out a ‘remote authority’ variation of his procedure • The confederate researcher wasn’t in the same room as the teacher • Gave orders over the phone • Found obedience dropped to 20.5% • Suggests participants were in an autonomous state and saw themselves as responsible for their actions Milgram (1963) reported that many of his participants were under moral strain • During debriefing many admitted that they knew what they were doing was wrong • They continued to obey however, suggesting they were in an agentic state • They felt they had to obey the orders of the authority figure

Answer 11

A limited explanation • Agency theory doesn’t explain many of the research findings • It can’t explain why some of Milgram’s participants didn’t obey • Humans are social animals involved in social hierarchies so should all obey • Hofling’s research where 21/22 nurses unquestioningly obeyed the doctor is also not consistent with agency theory • They didn’t show any signs of anxiety (moral strain) which would be predicted by the theory • This suggests an Agentic shift can only account for some cases of obedience

Answer 12

are socialised to recognise the authority of people (e.g. parents, police officers, doctors) • We recognise our own and other’s position in a social hierarchy • This links to agency theory – individuals are socialised to recognise the value of obedience to authority figures • From an early age, people experience examples of social roles relating to ‘master and servant’ • Helps keep stability in society • These kinds of people are legitimate authorities – it is agreed by society that they have the right to tell us what to do • This means we are more likely to obey them • Legitimate authority comes from having a defined social role which people respect (usually because it implies knowledge or it comes with legal power) • Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g. uniform and the legitimacy of a setting

Answer 13

One of the consequences of legitimacy of authority – some people are granted the power to punish others • Most of us accept this so we give up our independence and hand over control to people we trust to exercise their authority properly • We learn this from childhood • People can however use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes (e.g. Hitler and also demonstrated in Milgram study)

Answer 14

Bickman (1974) • Conducted a field experiment where researchers ordered passers-by to do something like pick up litter. • They were dressed either in a guard’s uniform, as a milkman, or just in smart clothes. • People were much more likely to obey the person in a guard’s uniform. • This was because he seemed to be the most legitimate authority figure There does seem to be cultural differences • A strength of this explanation is it a useful account of cultural differences in obedience • Many studies show countries differ in obedience to authority • Kilham and Mann (1974) • Replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found only 16% obedience • Mantell (1971) found 85% obedience in German participants • This shows in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience • This reflects how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures • This increases the validity of the explanation Milgram (1963) • Reported that some participants in his study ignored the learner’s apparent distress • They just focused on following the procedure e.g. pressing the buttons properly • Therefore they could be seen as doing their duty and recognising the legitimate authority of the researcher

Answer 15

An internal explanation

Answer 16

Fromm (1941)

Answer 17

He studied over 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups

Answer 18

Have authoritarian tendencies

Answer 19

Especially obedient to authority • Extreme respect for authority • Submissive to authority • Show contempt to those with inferior social status • Highly controversial attitudes towards sex, race and gender • View society as ‘going to the dogs’ – therefore believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values (love of country, religion, family) • Inflexible in their outlook – no ‘grey areas’ • Everything is right or wrong

Answer 20

Psychodynamic

Answer 21

Formed in childhood • Result of harsh parenting • Extremely strict discipline • Expectation of absolute loyalty • Impossibly high standards • Severe criticism of perceived failings • Conditional love – parents’ love and affection depends on child’s behaviour • These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child • Child cannot express these feelings directly against their parents (fear) • Displaced onto others perceived to be weaker (‘scapegoating’)

Answer 22

Correlational research support • Elms and Milgram (1966) • Found that participants in Milgram’s study who were highly obedient, were significantly more authoritarian on the F-scale, than disobedient participants • However this link is merely a correlation between the two variables • This makes it impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience on the basis of this result • It may be that a third factor e.g. lower level of education, causes both

Answer 23

Limited explanation • Any explanation of obedience in terms of individual personality will find it hard to explain obedience in the majority of a country’s population • E.g. in pre-war Germany, million of people displayed obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour • They must have differed in their personalities in all sorts of ways • It seems extremely unlikely they all possessed an authoritarian personality • An alternative explanation – social identity theory is more realistic • The majority of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews Methodological problems • This explanation is based on a flawed methodology • Every one of its items is worded in the same ‘direction’ it is therefore possible to get a high score for authoritarianism by ticking the same line of boxes (acquiescence bias) • Authoritarianism is therefore not being measured (not valid) • Adorno interviewed participants about their childhood experiences but already knew who had authoritarian personalities from their scores • This could have led to researcher bias Correlation with other variables • Many significant correlations were found between authoritarian personality and other variables e.g. prejudice against minority groups • Cause and effect cannot be inferred from correlations • Harsh parenting style therefore cannot be said to cause an authoritarian personality

Answer 24

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same. •These people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible

Answer 25

The pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people present who are not conforming • As we saw in Asch’s research, the person not conforming doesn’t have to be giving the ‘right’ answer • Simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to enable a person to be free to follow their own conscience. • This other person acts as a ‘model’ and gives them moral support • Asch’s research also showed that if this ‘non-conforming’ person starts conforming again, so does the naïve participant - The effect of dissent is not long lasting

Answer 26

Allen and Levine (1971) • Provided evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity • Found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. • More importantly, this occurred even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and said he had difficulty with his vision (clearly in no position to judge the length of the lines) • This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says, but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group

Answer 27

The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey • The presence of disobedient models has been shown to be a powerful source of social support • They make it easier for individuals to act independently • They also seem to demonstrate that disobedience is actually possible and how to do it • The participant may not follow the disobedient person’s behaviour but the other person’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ for the participant to copy • It frees him to act from his own conscience

Answer 28

Milgram (1974) • Found that when two confederates paired with the real participant left the study early on, declaring they would go no further, only 10% gave shocks up to 450V • Suggests creating the group norm of disobedience put the participants under pressure to conform to the confederates’ behaviour

Answer 29

A personality dimension that Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives

Answer 30

‘Internals’ believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them (internal locus of control) E.g. you do well in an exam because you worked hard, if you don’t do well it is because you didn’t work hard

Answer 31

‘Externals’ believe things happen without their own control it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces (external locus of control) If you do well in an exam it might be because you had an excellent textbook/teacher, if you fail, it might be because the questions were hard

Answer 32

People differ in the way they explain their successes and failures • It isn’t as simple as being ‘internal’ or ‘external’ • There is a continuum with high internal LOC at one end and high external LOC at the other • Low internal and low external lying in between

Answer 33

Rotter believed that having an internal LOC makes individuals more resistant to social pressures to conform or obey • Those seeing themselves in control of a situation are more likely to perceive themselves as having a free choice to conform or obey • If a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and experiences, they are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs and resist pressures from others • People with a high internal LOC also tend to be more self-confident, more achievement-oriented, have higher intelligence and have less need for social approval • These personality traits lead to greater resistance to social influence

Answer 34

Holland (1967) • Repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals • Found 37% of internals did not continue to 450V (showed some resistance) but only 23% of externals did not continue • Internals showed greater resistance to authority • This increases the validity of the LOC explanation and our confidence that it can explain resistance

Answer 35

Schurz (1985) • Found no relationship between LOC and obedience among Austrian participants who gave the highest level of what they believed to be painful, skindamaging bursts of ultrasound to a learner • However ‘internals’ tended to take more responsibility for their actions than ‘externals’ • This again, suggests that feeling of personal control may be related to resistance to social influence

Answer 36

Moghaddam (1998) • Found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans and have more of an external LOC • This suggests that differences in resistance to social influence across cultures can be explained by differences in LOC

Answer 37

Limited role of LOC The role of LOC in resisting social influence may have been somewhat exaggerated • Rotter (1982) points out that LOC only comes into play in novel situations • It has very little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations • In familiar situations our previous experiences will always be more important • People who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again even if they have a high internal LOC

Answer 38

• A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

Answer 39

Minority influence is most effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs • Over time (‘diachronic consistency’) • Between all the individuals that form the minority (‘synchronic consistency). • It draws attention to the minority view • Makes other people start to rethink their own views

Answer 40

When a minority keeps its beliefs the same over time

Answer 41

When all individuals who form the minority keep their beliefs consistent

Answer 42

Minority influence is more powerful if the minority demonstrates dedication to their position, for example, by making personal sacrifices. • Sometimes minorities engage in quite extreme activities showing commitment to the cause • These draw attention to their views - makes the majority pay more attention • This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting out of self-interest.

Answer 43

Relentless consistency (repeating the same arguments and behaviours again and again) could be counter-productive if it is seen by the majority as unbending, rigid and unreasonable. • This could be off-putting to the majority and unlikely to result in conversion to the minority position • Therefore minority influence is more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise. • They need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counter-arguments • The key is to strike a balance between consistency and flexibility

Answer 44

• Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position (they’ve been converted), pace picks up (conversion happens more quickly) and the minority gain status, power and acceptability • This is called the ‘snowball effect’ - Gradually the minority has become the majority view - A change has occurred

Answer 45

• Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position (they’ve been converted), pace picks up (conversion happens more quickly) and the minority gain status, power and acceptability • This is called the ‘snowball effect’ - Gradually the minority has become the majority view - A change has occurred

Answer 46

• Research support for consistency • Moscovici et al (1969) • Demonstrated minority influence • Participants were asked to state whether blue slides (that varied in intensity) were blue or green • The participants were either exposed to a consistent or inconsistent minority (two confederates in the group) • The study showed that a consistent minority had a greater effect than an inconsistent minority Research evidence for flexibility • Papastamou (1982) • Got participants to respond to questions about responsibility for pollution • They were also exposed to a minority’s extreme views on how to control pollution • When the minority refused to budge from their opinion they were not persuasive • When they appeared flexible by compromising, they were seen as less extreme, cooperative and reasonable • They were more persuasive in changing majority opinions • This shows how flexibility is a key factor in the minority influence’s ability to change a majority’s opinion

Answer 47

• Research support for consistency • Moscovici et al (1969) • Demonstrated minority influence • Participants were asked to state whether blue slides (that varied in intensity) were blue or green • The participants were either exposed to a consistent or inconsistent minority (two confederates in the group) • The study showed that a consistent minority had a greater effect than an inconsistent minority Research evidence for flexibility • Papastamou (1982) • Got participants to respond to questions about responsibility for pollution • They were also exposed to a minority’s extreme views on how to control pollution • When the minority refused to budge from their opinion they were not persuasive • When they appeared flexible by compromising, they were seen as less extreme, cooperative and reasonable • They were more persuasive in changing majority opinions • This shows how flexibility is a key factor in the minority influence’s ability to change a majority’s opinion

Answer 48

Artificial tasks • A limitation of minority influence research is that the tasks involved e.g. identifying the colour of a slide, are artificial (just like Asch’s line task when studying majority influence) • Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life • In jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are vastly more important – sometimes life or death • This means findings (e.g. Moscivici) lack external validity. They are limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real-life social situations Limited real-world applications • Research studies make a clear and obvious distinction between the majority and minority and do so in a controlled way (a strength) • A limitation however, is that real life social influence situations are much more complicated than this • There is more involved in the difference between a minority and a majority than just numbers • Majorities usually have a lot more power and status than minorities • Minorities are very committed to their causes – they have to be because they often face very hostile opposition • This is a limitation as the research supporting minority influence may be seen as overly simplistic

Answer 49

1) drawing attention (through proof of the problem) 2) consistency 3) deeper processing 4) the augmentation principle 5) the snowball effect 6) social cryptoamnesia

Answer 50

Saying the same message over and over

Answer 51

Saying the same message over and over

Answer 52

Many people who just accepted the status quo began to think about the minority

Answer 53

The minority engaging in extreme activities to show their commitment. This risk shows their commitment as their motive must be strong, therefore gets more attention

Answer 54

Over time, more people switch from the majority position to the minority position, pace picks up and the minority gain status, power and acceptability

Answer 55

Public opinion changes gradually over time until the minority view is accepted as the norm, but people forget where the view originally came from

Answer 56

Social change can be encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are actually doing

Answer 57

It may have a role to play as a new/alternative source of information is available to people

Answer 58

Zimbardo suggested that obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment.

Answer 59

Research support for normative social influence - Nolan at al (2008) Investigated wether social influence processes could lead to reduction in energy consumption. - they hung messages on the front doors if houses in San Diego every week for a month. - the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage. - another group has a message that just asked them to ‘save energy’ without mentioning other people. - significant decreases in energy usage was found in the fist group - shows conformity can lead to social change through normative social influence

Answer 60

Minority influence is only indirectly affective - social change happens slowly when it happens at all - do minorities really have much influence? - perhaps the effect of a minority are indirect and delayed - the effects of minority influence are fragile and its role in social influence is prehaps limited Methodological issues - explanations of how social change leads to social change draw heavily upon the studies of Moscovici, Asch and Milgram - all these studies can be criticised in terms of artificial tasks, lacking mundane realism, poor examples etc - this raises doubts about the validity of explanations

Answer 61

Majority influence

Answer 62

The control group (tested individually) had an error rate of only 0.04% showing how obvious the correct answers were • Participants conformed to the wrong answer on 32% of the 12 critical trials • 75% of participants conformed to at least one wrong answer • 25% never conformed • 5% conformed to all 12 wrong answer

Answer 63

People are influenced by group pressure even when the task has a clear-cut answer (unambiguous situation) • This has been called the ‘Asch effect’ • There are big individual differences in the amount to which people are affected by majority influence • Most conformed publicly but not privately • Suggested they were motivated by normative social influence • Wanted to gain acceptance or avoid rejection

Answer 64

The study was replicable •Many aspects of the Asch experiment were standardised such as the same number of confederates taking part, the same target lines being shown. •This means the study can be repeated and many have replicated his work since

Answer 65

Artificial task and situation •Participants knew they were in a research study •They may have gone along with the demands of the study (demand characteristics) •The task of identifying lines was relatively trivial so there was no reason not to conform •Conformity may be less if the consequences were more important •The group situation didn’t really resemble a groups we’re part of in everyday life •Task and situation was artificial •Doesn’t reflect everyday situations where people might conform •Results may not be generalisable to everyday situations Ethics • The naïve participants were deceived • They thought the other people were also genuine participants when they were confederates • They believed the study was about visual perception, not conformity • The participants may also have felt stress or embarrassment when answering the questions and disagreeing with others which also is a ‘protection of participants’ issue

Social Influence Flashcards

(90 cards)