Social influence

Question 1

Define conformity

Answer 1

A change in behaviour or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure

Question 2

Identity the 3 types of conformity

Answer 2

Compliance
Identification
Internalisation

Question 3

Define compliance

Answer 3

Shallowest level of conformity
Individual changes behaviour to FIT IN with group/avoid rejection
Do not privately agree with behaviour/belief but do agree publically
Due to normative social influence (NSI)

Question 4

Define identification

Answer 4

Individual adopts the behaviour/belief of group
Accept group’s norms out of desire for a relationship/association with the group

Question 5

Define internalisation

Answer 5

Deepest level of conformity
Individual accepts behaviour/belief of majority publically AND privately - become part of their belief system
Due to informational social influence (ISI)

Question 6

Identify the 2 explanations for conformity

Answer 6

Informational social influence (ISI)
Normative social influence (NSI)

Question 7

Define NSI

Answer 7

Conforming to the majority to avoid rejection
Driven by desire to be liked
Leads to compliance

Question 8

Define ISI

Answer 8

Conforming to majority because of a desire to the correct in situations where right action/belief is uncertain
Leads to internalisation

Question 9

Who studied conformity?
What did he do?
What did he find?

Answer 9

Asch (1951) - line judgment study

Groups of 8-10 male college students
Only one actual ppt - all other were confederates
Ppts shown standard line + 3 comparison lines - ppts had to identify which line matched standard line
6 control trials - confederates gave correct answers
12 critical trails - confederates gave same incorrect answer unanimously

75% ppts conformed at least once
5% ppts conformed every time
Overall conformity rate in critical trials - 32%

Suggests people will conform due to NSI - conform for social approval, avoid rejection

Question 10

Evaluate Asch’s study

KEY POINTS:
Ethical issues
Methological issues

Answer 10

Ethical issues:
- Deception + lack of informed consent
+ Debriefing was used to gain retrospective consent and ppts were informed of right to withdraw their results at that point

Methological issues:
- Poor external validity (low population validity, low ecological validity, low temporal valdity
- Low internal valdity - demand characteristics possibly present as ppts may have worked out what study was about

Question 11

3 variables affecting conformity (Asch’s variations)

Answer 11

Group size - increasing size of majority (no. of conferderates) increased conformity (up to a point(

Unanimity - Asch arranged for a confederate to give different answer to majority and/or sam answer as real ppt. This reduced conformity

Task difficulty - Asch made real answer less obvious by having lines of similar length, increasing task difficulty increased conformity

Question 12

Who investigated the power of social roles?

Answer 12

Zimbardo (1973) Stanford prison study

Question 13

Procedure of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 13

24 U.S male student volunteers
Randomly allocated role of prisoner or guard
Prisoners:
- arrested from home, deloused, given uniform, ID number
- given some rights e.g. 3 meals a day, 3 supervised toilet trips a day, 2 visits a week
Guards:
- given uniform, clubs, whistles, wore reflective sunglasses
Zimbardo took role as prison superintendent

Question 14

Findings of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 14

Experiment planned to last 2 weeks, but was stopped after 6 days
Many guards had become abusive
After rebellion was put down, prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious

Question 15

Conclusions of Zimbardo’s study

Answer 15

Situation had influenced people’s behaviour
Guards, prisoners + researchers all conformed to roles within prison

Question 16

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s study

KEY WORDS:
3 ethical issues
3 methological issues

Answer 16

ethical issues:
- protection from harm + psychological harm
- right to withdraw (pressurised to stay)
HOWEVER - would have lacked realism if allowed to leave, therefore validity of a prison without this
- lack of informed consent (consent gained but unlikely sufficiently infomed)

methological issues:
- Zimbardo played ‘dual role’ - became to involved - his behaviour may have influnced way in which event unfolded
- criticized for likely demand characteristics
- reasonably poor ecological validity - not a real prison - difficult to generalise

Question 17

Who investigated obedience?

Answer 17

Milgram’s (1963) electric shock study

Question 18

Sample of Milgram’s study

Answer 18

40 male ppts
Aged between 20-50
All American - New Haven area
White, middle class
Volunteers

Question 19

Procedure of Milgram’s study

Answer 19

Drew starts to assign role of leaner + teacher - it was rigged, ppt always teacher, confederate always learner
Ppts told that confederate/leaner had heart condition
Shocks on scale of 15V - 450V in 15V increments
Learner gave mainly wrong answers on purpose
If ppt refused to administer shock - series of prods used by experimenter
Teacher + learner in separate rooms
NO SHOCK ACTUALLY ADMINISTERED - ALL FAKE

Question 20

Findings of Milgram’s study

Answer 20

65% ppts continued to full 450V
100% of ppts continued up to 300V

Question 21

Evaluate Milgram’s study
KEY WORDS:
3 ethical issues

Answer 21

• protection from harm + psychological distress
• right to withdraw
• deception + lack of informed consent (ppts unaware shocks were fake, thought study was into ‘learning’ not conformity)

Question 22

What are the 3 situational VARIABLES of obedience (from Milgram’s study)

Answer 22

Effect of location
Proximity
Uniform

Question 23

Effect of location (Milgram’s study) variation

Answer 23

Location changed to run-down building
Obedience levels dropped by 17.5% (65% at Yale vs 47.5% run-down office)
Status of location changed ppts perception of legitimacy of authority of the investigator

Question 24

Proximity (Milgram’s study) variation

Answer 24

When teacher + learner in same room - obedience levels decreased
When experimenter leaves room - obedience levels decreased

Question 25

Uniform (Milgram’s study) variation

Answer 25

Obedience levels decreased if lab coat not worn by experimenter

Question 26

What are the 3 situational EXPLANATIONS of obedience

Answer 26

Legitimacy of authority Agentic state Binding factors

Question 27

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 27

When a person recognises their own + other’s position in a social heirarchy Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority e.g uniform (Milgram - lab coat vs no lab coat) Legitimacy of setting can contribute - Yale vs run-down office

Question 28

Agentic state

Answer 28

When a person acts on behalf of an authority figure/person of higher status, the actor feels no responsibly/no guilt for actions Person shifts into an ‘agentic state’ (opposite of autonomous state, where people act according to their own principles)

Question 29

Binding factors

Answer 29

When aspects of the situation mean the individual is able to take away their own ‘moral strain’ and ignore their damaging behaviour

Question 30

How is authoirtarian personality measured?

Answer 30

Using the F scale

Question 31

Is the authoritarian personality a dispositional or situational explanation of obedience?

Answer 31

Dispostional (internal factors which influence our actions e.g. personality traits, biological makeup)

Question 32

Authoritarian traits - developed from strict, rigid parenting

Answer 32

- Highly conformist - Dogmatic - Conventional - Very high respect for authority figures - Very obedient towards people of perceived higher status - Very hostile (unfriendly) towards people of perceived lower status

Question 33

Authoritarian traits - developed from strict, rigid parenting

Answer 33

- Highly conformist - Dogmatic - Conventional - Very high respect for authority figures - Very obedient towards people of perceived higher status - Very hostile (unfriendly) towards people of perceived lower status

Question 34

Evaluation of the authoritarian personality of obedience

Answer 34

Little supporting research - much more research for role of situational factors Explnation problematic - relies on self-report - F scale = questionnaire data NOT VALID EVIDENCE BASE Difficulties establishing cause + effect between AP parenting style and obedience: - based on retrospective data - level of education may determine authoritarianism and obedience

Question 35

What are the 2 ways of resisting SI?

Answer 35

Locus of control Social support

Question 36

Internal locus of control

Answer 36

More likely to resist pressure to conform Less likely to obey (resist SI) than those with an external locus of control Belive they control their own circumstances

Question 37

Evaluation of locus of control

Answer 37

Reasonable level of supporting evidence - Holland (1967): - found 37% people with an ILOC refused to obey max shock level in Milgram-type study - compared to 23% with an ELOC Oliner + Oliner (1988) interviewed 2 groups of non-Jews who lived through the holocaust in Nazi Germany - interviewed 406 people who had rescued + protected Jews and 106 who had not - found rescuers more likely to have an ILOC

Question 38

Social support (presence of an ally)

Answer 38

Non-conformity more likely if others are seen to resist SI Seeing other disobey/not conform gives an observer confidence to do so Different types of social support depending on type of SI being resisted: - disobedient role models (obedience) challenge legitimacy of authority figure - having an ally (conformity) breaks the unanimity of the group in conformity situations

Question 39

Evaluation of social support

Answer 39

Presence of an ally giving wrong answer in a variation of Asch’s study/disobedient role model who refused to shock in variation of Milgram’s study - demonstrates the effect of social support, as conformity levels were reduces Not just social support, other factors also involved in resistance e.g. dispostion (ILOC + high-self esteem), gender

Question 40

What are the 3 types of minority influence?

Answer 40

Consisistency - keeping to a view Commitment - defending a view Flexibility

Question 41

Research support for consistency

Answer 41

Research support of consistency: Moscovoci (1969) - told 172 female ppts they were taking part in a colour perception task - ppts had to state aloud colour of each slide - 2 of 6 ppts were confederates - in 1 condition, the 2 confederates said all 36 slides were green - in 2nd condition - confederates said 24 slides were green + 12 were blue - real ppts agreed and gave wrong answer ‘green’ 7% more of the time in the 1st condition Over time, commitment to a majority view will increasingly convert people, and there will become a ‘tipping point’ via the snowball effect

Question 42

What is social change?

Answer 42

Change which occurs in a society, not at individual level Minorities bring about social change by being consistent, committed and flexible

Question 43

What are the social influence processes in social change?

Answer 43

Drawing attention through social proof Consistency Deeper processing of issue Augmentation principle Snowball effect Social crypto-amnesia

Question 44

Consistency

Answer 44

Contributes to social change when a minority repeatedly gives same message This makes majority reassess their belief + consider issue more carefully

Question 45

Augmentation principle (commitment)

Answer 45

Commitment contributes to social change when a minority shows they are willing to give up something for their belief, the majority take their argument more seriously (so may adopt as their own)

Question 46

Social crypto-amnesia

Answer 46

People have a memory that change has occurred but don’t remember how it happened

Question 47

Evaluation of social processes

Question 48

Evaluation of social influence processes in social change?