Social influence Flashcards
(110 cards)
1
Q
what is meant by conformity?
A
-a change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people
2
Q
what are the three types of conformity proposed by Kelman ( 1958 )?
A
-internalisation = when a person takes on the majority view because they genuinely accept it as correct
-identification = when a person acts in the same way as the group because they identify with / value it and want to be a part of it
-compliance = when a person outwardly goes along with the majority view to gain the group’s approval / avoid disapproval, but privately disagrees with it
3
Q
what are the key features of internalisation?
A
-deep type
-results in a private and public change of personal opinions / behaviour
-usually a permanent change because attitudes have been internalised, i.e. become part of the way the person thinks
-change persists even when the group is absent
4
Q
what are the key features of identification?
A
-moderate type
-results in a public change of opinions / behaviour, even if they don’t privately agree with everything the group stands for ( i.e. group norms )
-temporary change
-change only lasts as long as the group is present and stops as soon as the person stops identifying with the group
5
Q
what are the key features of compliance?
A
-superficial / weakest type
-results in a public change of opinions / behaviour, even if they don’t privately agree with the majority view
-temporary change
-change only lasts as long as the group is present and stops as soon as group pressure stops
6
Q
what is the two-process theory of social influence proposed by Deutsch and Gerard ( 1955 )?
A
-they argued that people conform because of two basic human needs: the need to be right ( ISI ) and the need to be liked ( NSI )
7
Q
what is informational social influence?
A
-when a person conforms because they want to be right, they look to others to have the correct answer in ambiguous or crisis situations where they don’t have the knowledge or expertise to make their own decision and accept that the majority view is correct, leading to a permanent change in opinion / behaviour ( internalisation )
-it is a cognitive process because it is to do with what a person thinks
8
Q
what is normative social influence?
A
-when a person conforms because they want to gain social approval and be liked, they accept the group norms and behave like the majority to avoid rejection and judgement ( usually from strangers ) in stressful situations where people have a greater need for social support, leading to a temporary change in opinion / behaviour ( compliance )
-it is an emotional process because people prefer social approval rather than rejection
9
Q
evaluate the explanations for conformity
A
-a strength is research support for ISI
-another strength is research support for NSI
-one limitation is individual differences in NSI
10
Q
why is it a strength that research supports ISI as an explanation for conformity?
A
-E = Lucas et al. ( 2006 ) found that conformity to an obviously incorrect answer was greater when the maths question was difficult and the participant rated their own maths ability unfavourably
-E = this shows that individuals are more likely to turn to others when they lack the information to make their own informed decisions, i.e. in an ambiguous situation such as when the maths question was hard, suggesting that ISI is a valid explanation for conformity
-counterpoint = it is often unclear whether it is ISI or NSI at work in research studies and real life, e.g. Asch ( 1955 ) found that conformity is reduced when there is a dissenting confederate because they may reduce the power of ISI ( by providing an alternative source of information ) or NSI ( by providing social support ), therefore both interpretations are possible and ISI and NSI are hard to separate and operate together in most real-world conformity situations
11
Q
why is it a strength that research supports NSI as an explanation for conformity?
A
-E = Asch ( 1951 ) found that participants conformed 36.8% of the time rather than gave the correct answer because they were afraid of disapproval, so when they wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5% because there was no normative group pressure
-E = this shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group for disagreeing with them ( i.e. NSI )
12
Q
what is it a limitation that NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case?
A
-E = some people are concerned about being liked by others, i.e. nAfiliators who have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ ( need to relate to other people ), and McGhee and Teevan ( 1967 ) found that students who were nAfiliators were more likely to conform
-E = this shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others, therefore there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures
13
Q
what were the aims of Asch’s ( 1951 ) research on conformity?
A
-to investigate the extent that people conformed to the opinion of others, even in a situation where the answer is certain ( i.e. unambiguous ) and the others’ answers were clearly wrong
14
Q
what was Asch’s baseline procedure?
A
-123 American male participants were tested individually in 12 critical trials ( 18 trials in total ), sitting last or next to last in a group of 6 to 8 confederates
-they were shown 4 lines which included 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines, one of which was clearly the same length as the standard line
-on each trial, each group member stated which of the 3 lines matched the standard line, but the confederates all gave the same incorrect scripted answer
15
Q
what were Asch’s baseline findings?
A
-the genuine participants conformed 36.8% of the time, showing a high level of conformity when the situation is unambiguous
-there were individual differences, e.g. 25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer ( i.e. never conformed )
16
Q
what were the aims of Asch’s ( 1955 ) research on conformity?
A
-to investigate the variables ( i.e. group size, unanimity and task difficulty ) that might lead to an increase or decrease in conformity
17
Q
what was Asch’s research on the effect of group size on conformity?
A
-procedure = he varied the number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15 ( total group size between 2 and 16 )
-findings = the relationship between group size and level of conformity was curvilinear ( conformity increased with group size, but only up to a point ), conformity was 13.6% with 2 confederates and 31.8% with 3 but above this, conformity rate levelled off and adding more made little difference
-explanation = most people are very sensitive to the opinions of others because just one confederate was enough to sway opinion
18
Q
what was Asch’s research on the effect of unanimity on conformity?
A
-procedure = he introduced a dissenting confederate who sometimes gave the correct answer and sometimes gave a different wrong answer but always disagreed with the majority
-findings = in the presence of a dissenter, conformity reduced on average to less than 1/4 of the level it was when the majority was unanimous, even when the dissenter disagreed with the genuine participant
-explanation = the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous and so having a dissenter enabled the participant to behave more independently
19
Q
what was Asch’s research on the effect of task difficulty on conformity?
A
-procedure = he made the line-judging task harder by making the stimulus line and comparison lines more similar in length so it was more difficult to judge the correct answer
-findings = conformity increased with task difficulty
-explanation = the situation became more ambiguous when the task was harder, so the participants looked to the others for guidance and assumed the majority view was right ( ISI )
20
Q
evaluate Asch’s research on conformity
A
-one strength is support from other evidence
-one limitation is that the task and situation were artificial
-another limitation is that his findings have little application
-another limitation is that he breached the BPS ethical guideline of deception because the participants were tricked into thinking the study was about perception rather than compliance so they couldn’t give their informed consent and there could have been psychological harm as they could have been embarrassed after realising the true aims of the study, however they were later debriefed and reminded of their right to withdraw
21
Q
why is it a strength that Asch’s findings are supported by other evidence?
A
-E = Lucas et al. ( 2006 ) asked their participants to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems and they were given answers that ( falsely ) claimed to be from three other students, and they found that the participants conformed to the wrong answers more often when the problems were harder
-E = this shows Asch was correct in claiming that task difficulty is one variable that affects conformity
22
Q
why is it a limitation that the task and situation were artificial?
A
-E = participants knew they were in a research study and so may have responded to demand characteristics, and the task of identifying lines was relatively trivial and therefore there was no reason not to conform
-also, Fiske ( 2014 ) argued that ‘Asch’s groups were not very groupy’, i.e. they didn’t really resemble groups that we experience in everyday life ( low mundane realism )
-E = this means the findings don’t generalise to real-world situations, especially those where the consequences of conformity are important, so low ecological validity
23
Q
why is it a limitation that Asch’s findings have little application?
A
-E = only American men were tested and Neto ( 1995 ) suggested that women might be more conformist, possibly because they are more concerned about social relationships and being accepted
-also, the US is an individualist culture and studies in collectivist cultures ( e.g. China where the social group is more important than the individual ) have found higher conformity rates ( Bond and Smith 1996 )
-E = this means Asch’s findings lack population validity and therefore tell us little about conformity in women and people from some cultures
24
Q
what is meant by social roles?
A
-the parts people play as members of various social groups ( e.g. parent, child, student, passenger ) that are accompanied by expectations of what is appropriate behaviour in each role
25
what were the aims of Zimbardo et al.'s ( 1971 ) research on conformity to social roles?
-to investigate how readily people would conform to the social roles in a stimulated environment, and specifically, whether the brutality seen in prisons was due to the guards having sadistic personalities ( dispositional factors ) or the prison environment ( situational factors )
26
what was the procedure of the Stanford Prison Experiment?
-they set up a mock prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University
-24 male student volunteers who tested as 'emotionally stable' were paid to take part in the study and randomly allocated to the role of guard or prisoner
-guards worked 8 hour shifts, while the others remained on call
-prisoners were only allowed in the hallway which acted as their yard, and to the toilet
-no physical violence was permitted, in line with ethical guidelines and to prevent complete overruling
-Zimbardo played the role of prison superintendent
-the behaviour of the participants was observed
27
what is meant by deindividuation?
-a psychological state in which individuals lose their sense of self and take on the identity of the social group
28
how were the social roles in the SPE encouraged?
-uniform = prisoners were strip-searched, given a loose smock to wear, a cap to cover their hair and a number to be identified by ( no names ) to increase deindividuation; guards were given props like handcuffs, a wooden club and sunglasses to make eye contact with prisoners impossible and to reinforce superiority
-instructions about behaviour = prisoners were told they couldn't leave the study early but would have to apply for parole; guards were told they had complete power over prisoners
29
what were the findings of the SPE?
-both the prisoners and guards adopted their new roles with enthusiasm and played their part in a short amount of time, suggesting identification occurred very fast
-the prisoners rebelled within two days by ripping their uniforms and shouting and swearing at the guards, and the guards retaliated with fire extinguishers and deprived them of sleep by doing frequent headcounts at night to remind them of their powerless role
-the guards' harsh behaviour threatened the prisoners' psychological and physical health, e.g. they became subdued, anxious and depressed after the rebellion was put down, 3 prisoners were released early because they showed signs of psychological disturbance, and one prisoner went on a hunger strike so the guards attempted to force-feed him and punished him by putting him in 'the hole' ( a tiny dark closet )
-prisoners would only talk about prison issues ( forgetting about their previous life ) and snitch on other prisoners to the guards to please them, suggesting they believed the prison was real
-the guards became more demanding of obedience and assertiveness towards the prisoners, while the prisoners became more submissive, suggesting the respective social roles became increasingly internalised
-the study was stopped after 6 days instead of the planned 14 days
30
evaluate the SPE
-one strength is the control over key variables
-one limitation is that it lacked the realism of a true prison
-another limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour ( Fromm 1973 )
-another limitation is that he breached the BPS ethical guidelines of protection from harm ( physical and psychological ) and informed consent because prisoners weren't given their right to withdraw and were only released after showing signs of psychological disturbance
31
why is it a strength that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables?
-E = emotionally-stable participants were selected and randomly assigned to the roles of prisoner and guard to reduce investigator effects and rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings, so their behaviour was due to the role itself
-E = this increased the study's internal validity, so we have more confidence in drawing conclusions about the effect of social roles on conformity
32
why is it a limitation that the SPE lacked the realism of a true prison?
-E = Banuazizi and Mohavedi ( 1975 ) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role because their performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave, e.g. one guard based his role on a character from the film 'Cool Hand Luke' and the prisoners rioted because they thought that was what real prisoners did
-E = this suggests the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons
-counterpoint = participants behaved as if the prison was real, e.g. 90% of the prisoners' conversations were about prison life, and Prisoner 416 later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government, suggesting the SPE replicated the social roles of guards and prisoners in a real prison, increasing external validity
33
why is it a limitation that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour?
-E = only 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally, another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly and the rest supported the prisoners, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges ( Zimbardo 2007 ), therefore most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role
-E = this suggests that Zimbardo overstated the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences ( e.g. personality )
34
what is meant by obedience?
-a form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order
35
what were the aims of Milgram's ( 1963 ) research on obedience?
-to investigate whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person, such as when a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler's commands to murder over 11 million people in the Holocaust
36
what was Milgram's baseline procedure?
-he recruited 40 American male participants supposedly for a study of memory
-each participant arrived at Milgram's lab and drew lots for their role, but a confederate ( 'Mr Wallace' ) was always the learner while the true participant was the teacher
-an experimenter ( another confederate ) wore a lab coat
-the learner was strapped into a chair in a separate room and wired up with electrodes, and his task was to remember word pairs
-each time the learner made an error, the teacher delivered a stronger ( fake ) electric shock by pressing switches on a shock machine which increased in 15V steps up to 450V
-if the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter used a sequence of four standard verbal prods to continue
37
what were Milgram's baseline findings?
-12.5% ( 5 participants ) stopped at 300V
-65% continued to 450V ( highest level )
-observations = participants showed signs of extreme tension, many were seen to 'sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingernails into their hands' and three even had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'
-14 psychology students predicted that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450V, so the findings were unexpected
-all participants were debriefed and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal
-a follow-up questionnaire showed 84% were glad they had participated
38
what were Milgram's conclusions?
-German people aren't 'different' because the American participants in Milgram's study were willing to obey legitimate authority even when they might harm another person
-he suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience, so he decided to conduct further studies to investigate these
39
evaluate Milgram's research on obedience
-one strength is that his baseline findings have been replicated
-one limitation is that his study lacked internal validity
-another limitation is that his conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified
-another limitation is that there are ethical issues such as deception and psychological harm
40
why is it a strength that Milgram's baseline findings have been replicated?
-E = in a French TV documentary / game show, contestants were paid to give fake electric shocks to other participants ( who were actually actors ) when ordered by the presenter ( Beauvois et al. 2012 ) and 80% gave the maximum 460V to an apparently unconscious man
-E = this supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority, increasing external reliability
41
why is it a limitation that Milgram's baseline study lacked internal validity?
-E = Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine, but Orne and Holland ( 1968 ) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up, so they were 'play-acting', which was supported by Perry's ( 2013 ) discovery that only about half of them believed the shocks were real
-E = this suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aims of the study
-counterpoint = Sheridan and King's ( 1972 ) participants gave real shocks to a puppy and 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock, suggesting the obedience in Milgram's study might be genuine
42
why is it a limitation that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified?
-E = Haslam et al. ( 2014 ) found that every participant given the first three verbal prods obeyed the experimenter, but those given the fourth prod disobeyed, and according to social identity theory, the first three prods required identification with the science of the research but the fourth prod required blind obedience
-E = this shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings as they are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority
43
why is it a limitation that there are ethical issues?
-E = the participants were deceived e.g. they thought that the shocks were real and that the study was on memory, which Milgram dealt with by debriefing participants, but Baumrind ( 1964 ) argues that deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers e.g. no informed consent possible
-E = therefore, research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public
44
what is meant by situational variables?
-features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour
45
what were the aims of Milgram's later research on obedience?
-to investigate the situational variables ( i.e. proximity, location and uniform ) that might lead to an increase or decrease in obedience
46
what were the findings of Milgram's research on the effect of proximity on obedience and why?
-65% obedience rate = baseline study, i.e. the teacher could hear the learner but not see him
-40% = proximity variation, i.e. the teacher and learner were in the same room
-30% = touch proximity variation, i.e. the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto an electroshock plate
-20.5% and participants often pretended to give shocks = remote instruction variation, i.e. the experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the teacher by telephone
-explanation = decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, so they are less aware of the harm they are causing to another person and thus more obedient
47
what were the findings of Milgram's research on the effect of location on obedience and why?
-65% obedience rate = baseline study, i.e. in Yale University
-47.5% = location variation, i.e. in a run-down office block
-explanation = the prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority so they were more obedient because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected
48
what were the findings of Milgram's research on the effect of uniform on obedience and why?
-65% obedience rate = baseline study, i.e. the experimenter wore a lab coat
-20% = uniform variation, i.e. the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure and replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' ( a confederate ) in everyday clothes
-explanation = uniforms encourage obedience because they are widely recognised as symbols of authority, so we accept that someone in a uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate ( i.e. is granted by society )
49
evaluate Milgram's research on situational variables affecting obedience
-one strength is research support for the influence of situational variables
-another strength is cross-cultural replication
-one limitation is low internal validity
-another limitation is that his findings support a situational explanation of obedience
50
why is it a strength that there is research support for the influence of situational variables?
-E = in a field experiment in New York City, Bickman ( 1974 ) had three confederates dress in different outfits ( jacket / tie, milkman, security guard ) and issue demands such as pick up litter to passers-by, and people were twice as likely to obey the 'security guard' than the 'tie / jacket' confederate
-E = this supports the view that a situational variable, such as a uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience
51
why is it a strength that Milgram's findings have been replicated in other cultures?
-E = Meeus and Raaijmakers ( 1986 ) worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to someone desperate for a job ( a confederate ) and found 90% obedience which fell when the person giving the orders wasn't present ( i.e. proximity decreased )
-E = this suggests that Milgram's findings aren't just limited to American males but are valid across cultures and genders
-counterpoint = Smith and Bond ( 1998 ) note that most replications took place in societies ( e.g. Spain, Australia ) that are culturally quite similar to the US, therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram's findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people in all or most cultures
52
why is it a limitation that Milgram's studies lacked internal validity?
-E = Orne and Holland ( 1968 ) suggested that the variations ( compared to the baseline study ) were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra manipulation of variables, e.g. in the uniform variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public, even Milgram recognised that the situation was so contrived that some participants may have worked out the truth
-E = therefore, it is unclear whether the results are due to obedience or because the participants saw through the deception and responded to demand characteristics, decreasing internal validity
53
why is it a limitation that Milgram's findings support a situational explanation of obedience?
-E = Mandel ( 1998 ) argues that this perspective offers an excuse or 'alibi' for evil behaviour ( e.g. genocide ) and it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that the Nazis were simply obeying orders
-E = this permits others to excuse destructive behaviour and ignores the role of dispositional factors ( such as personality ) on obedience
54
what is the difference between situational and dispositional explanations for obedience?
-situational = highlights the importance of the external environment in determining behaviour
-dispositional = highlights the importance of the individual's personality ( i.e. their disposition )
55
what is the first situational explanation for obedience?
-agentic state = a state of agency where a person feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour because they believe they are acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent
-agency theory is the idea that people are more likely to obey when they are in this state as they don't believe they will suffer the consequences of their actions since they are acting on behalf of someone else
56
what is the autonomous state?
-a state of agency where a person is free to behave according to their own principles and feels responsible for their actions ( i.e. the opposite of being in the agentic state )
57
what is the agentic shift?
-the shift from autonomy to agency, which Milgram ( 1974 ) suggested occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure, who has greater power because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy
58
what are binding factors?
-aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they feel
-Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing
59
what is the second explanation for obedience?
-legitimacy of authority = people are more likely to obey someone who they perceive to have authority over them
-the authority is justified ( legitimate ) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy which is agreed by society
-most people accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly, which they learn to accept from childhood ( from parents initially and then teachers etc. )
60
what is one of the consequences of legitimacy of authority?
-people with legitimate authority are granted the power to punish others and we give up some independence to people we trust to exercise their authority properly
-however, history has shown that some leaders ( e.g. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot ) use their legitimate authority for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways
-destructive authority was obvious in Milgram's study when the experimenter ( who was perceived to have legitimate expert authority because they held the highest position within the social hierarchy of the experimental scenario ) used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
61
evaluate the agentic state explanation for obedience
-one strength is research support
-one limitation is that the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience
-another limitation is that the agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour
62
why is it a strength that there is research support for the agentic state?
-E = most of Milgram's participants resisted giving the shocks at some point, and often asked the experimenter 'who is responsible if Mr Wallace ( the learner ) is harmed?' and when he replied 'I'm responsible' the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections
-E = this shows participants acted more easily as the experimenter's agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour
63
why is it a limitation that the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience?
-E = Rank and Jacobson ( 1977 ) found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient, so even though the doctor was an obvious authority figure, almost all the nurses remained autonomous and didn't shift into an agentic state, which is also true for some of Milgram's participants
-E = this shows that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
64
why is it a limitation that the agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour?
-E = Mandel ( 1998 ) described one incident in the second world war involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101 who shot many civilians in a small Polish town, despite not having direct orders to do so ( they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred )
-E = this suggests that the men behaved autonomously, challenging the agentic state explanation for obedience to destructive behaviour
65
evaluate the legitimacy of authority explanation for obedience
-one strength is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
-another strength is support from real-world crimes of obedience
-one limitation is that it cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
66
why is it a strength that the legitimacy explanation is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience?
-E = many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority, e.g. 16% of Australian women obeyed ( Kilham and Mann 1974 ) but 85% of German participants did ( Mantell 1971 )
-E = this shows that authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
67
why is it a strength that the legitimacy explanation is supported by real-world crimes of obedience?
-E = research shows that some people disobey legitimate authority, e.g. Rank and Jacobson ( 1977 ) found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor even in a hierarchy, but soldiers at My Lai obeyed their commanding officer ( Lt Calley ) when he ordered them to commit various war crimes such as killing over 500 unarmed civilians in 1968 and burning the village to the ground, possibly because COs operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy ( i.e. of the US Army ) than doctors and have a greater power to punish ( Kelman and Hamilton 1989 )
-E = therefore, there is some evidence in real-world situations that suggests that legitimate authority can lead to destructive behaviour
68
why is it a limitation that the legitimacy explanation cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted?
-E = most of Rank and Jacobson's nurses were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure, as were some of Milgram's participants despite recognising the experimenter's scientific authority
-E = this suggests that innate tendencies to obey or disobey may have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure
69
what is the dispositional explanation for obedience?
-Adorno et al. ( 1950 ) believed that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder and people with an authoritarian personality are especially obedient to authority
70
what are the key characteristics of the AP?
-show an extreme respect for and submissiveness to authority
-view society as weaker than it once was and so believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as love of country and family
-express contempt for people of inferior social status, which is fuelled by their inflexible outlook on the world ( i.e. there are no grey areas and everything is either right or wrong )
-therefore, authoritarians tend to follow orders and view people who are 'other' ( e.g. belong to a different ethnic group ) as responsible for the ills of society
71
where does the AP originate from?
-Adorno believed it forms in childhood, mostly as a result of harsh parenting which typically features extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, severe criticism and conditional love ( i.e. a parent's love and affection for their child depends entirely on how they behave )
-these experiences create resentment and hostility in the child, but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents because they fear punishment, so their feelings are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker, in a process known as scapegoating ( which is a psychodynamic explanation )
72
what research is there on the AP?
-Adorno et al. ( 1950 ) = they developed several measurement scales including the potential-for-facism scale ( F-scale ) to study more than 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
-an example of an item from the F-scale is: 'there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents'
-findings = a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice, authoritarians ( who scored high on the F-scale ) identified with strong people, were contemptous of the weak, very conscious of their own and others' status, showed extreme respect and deference to those of higher status and had a certain cognitive style in which there was no fuzziness between categories of people, with fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups
73
evaluate the AP explanation for obedience
-one strength is evidence that authoritarians are obedient
-one limitation is authoritarianism cannot explain a whole country's behaviour
-another limitation is that the F-scale is politically biased
-another limitation is that it is based on flawed evidence
74
why is it a strength that there is evidence supporting the AP?
-E = Elms and Milgram ( 1966 ) interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from Milgram's original obedience studies who scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
-E = this finding supports Adorno et al.'s view that obedient people may share many of the characteristics of people with an AP
-counterpoint = subscales of the F-scale showed that obedient participants had characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians e.g. they didn't experience high levels of punishment in childhood, suggesting a complex link between obedience and authoritarianism and that authoritarianism isn't a useful predictor of obedience
75
why is it a limitation that authoritarianism cannot explain a whole country's behaviour?
-E = in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour, but they can't all have had the same personality so it seems extremely unlikely that the majority of Germany's population had an AP and a more likely explanation is that Germans identified with the Nazi state and scapegoated the 'outgroup' of Jews
-E = therefore, Adorno's theory is limited because social identity theory may be a much more realistic explanation
76
why is it a limitation that the F-scale is politically biased?
-E = Christie and Jahoda ( 1954 ) argued that the F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology, but right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority
-E = this means Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn't explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism
77
why is it a limitation that the AP explanation is based on flawed evidence?
-E = the F-scale is a self-report technique which presents social desirability and response bias as people who tend to agree to the statements are scored as authoritarian but they may not have given accurate answers
-E = therefore, explanations of obedience based on research with the F-scale may not be valid
78
what is meant by resistance to social influence?
-the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority, which is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors
79
what is the situational explanation of resistance to SI?
-social support = the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do the same as they act as models to show others that resistance to SI is possible
80
how does social support affect conformity?
-the pressure to conform is reduced if other people are not conforming
-Asch's research showed that the dissenter doesn't have to give the right answer, but the fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support which frees others to follow their own conscience as the dissenter acts as a model of independent behaviour
-the confederate's dissent gives rise to more dissent because it shows that the majority is no longer unanimous
81
how does social support affect obedience?
-the pressure to obey is reduced if another person is seen to disobey
-in one of Milgram's variations, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate as their dissent freed the participant to act from his own conscience
-also, a disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey
82
what is the dispositional explanation of resistance to SI?
-locus of control = the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives
83
what are the two ends of the LOC continuum proposed by Rotter ( 1966 ) and which is more likely to resist SI?
-internal LOC = a person believes that they are mostly responsible for what happens to them ( e.g. doing well or badly in an exam depends on how hard you work )
-external LOC = a person believes that their life is determined by external forces ( e.g. luck or fate ) that are outside their control
-people with a high internal LOC are more likely to resist pressures to conform or obey because they take personal responsibility for their actions and so are more likely to base their decisions on their own beliefs
-also, internals tend to be more self-confident, achievement-oriented and have higher intelligence, which are all traits that lead to greater resistance to SI and of leaders who have less need for social approval than followers
84
evaluate social support as an explanation for resistance to SI
-one strength is evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity
-another strength is evidence for the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience
-one limitation is that social support doesn't always help individuals to resist the influence of a group
85
why is it a strength that there is evidence for the role of support in resisting conformity?
-E = in an eight-week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke ( called Teen Fresh Start USA ), social support was provided by a slightly older buddy and they were less likely to smoke at the end than a control group who didn't have a buddy ( Albrecht et al. 2006 )
-E = this shows that social support can help young people resist SI as part of an intervention in the real-world
86
why is it a strength that there is evidence for the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience?
-E = Gamson et al.'s ( 1982 ) participants were asked to produce evidence for an oil company to use in a smear campaign and 29 out of 33 groups ( 88% ) rebelled against their orders, which was much higher than in Milgram's studies because they were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do
-E = this shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure
87
why is it a limitation that social support doesn't always help individuals to resist the influence of a group?
-E = only 3% of Allen and Levine's ( 1971 ) participants resisted conformity in an Asch-type task when there was no supporter, but 64% resisted when a dissenter refused to conform
-however, only 36% resisted when the dissenter clearly had poor eyesight ( thick glasses ) and could not be relied on to judge the lines
-E = this shows that there was less resistance to SI when participants believed that social support was not helpful
88
evaluate LOC as an explanation for resistance to SI
-one strength is evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience
-one limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance to obedience
-another limitation is that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists SI
89
why is it a strength that there is evidence to support the role of LOC in resisting obedience?
-E = Holland ( 1967 ) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals, and he found that 37% of internals didn't continue to the highest shock level ( i.e. they showed greater resistance ) compared to 23% of externals
-E = this shows that resistance is at least partially related to LOC, increasing the validity of this explanation of disobedience
90
why is it a limitation that there is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance to obedience?
-E = Twenge et al. ( 2004 ) analysed data from American LOC studies over 40 years ( 1960-2002 ), showing that people have become more independent but also more external which is surprising because if resistance is linked to internal LOC we would expect people to have become more internal
-E = this suggests that LOC is not a valid explanation of resistance to SI
91
why is it a limitation that LOC is not necessarily the most important factor in determining whether someone resists SI?
-E = Rotter ( 1982 ) pointed out that LOC only significantly influences behaviour in new situations, whereas in familiar ones, our previous responses are always more important e.g. if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so again in that situation regardless of whether you have a high internal or high external LOC
-E = therefore, the validity of the LOC explanation is limited because it can predict resistance in some situations but not in others
92
what is meant by minority influence?
-a form of social influence in which a person or small group ( i.e. a minority ) persuades others to adopt their beliefs or behaviours, which is most likely to lead to internalisation as both public behaviour and private attitudes are changed
93
what research is there on minority influence?
-Moscovici et al. ( 1969 ) = a group of 6 people ( 4 participants and 2 confederates ) viewed 36 blue-coloured slides of varying intensities and were asked to state whether the slides were blue or green, both confederates said the slides were green in the consistent minority condition, the confederates said green 24 times and blue 12 times in the inconsistent minority condition, and there were no confederates in the control condition
-findings = participants gave the same wrong answer ( green ) on 8.42% of trials in the consistent minority condition, agreement fell to 1.25% in the inconsistent minority condition, and participants wrongly identified the colour just 0.25% of the time in the control condition
-conclusions = consistency is crucial for a minority to exert maximum influence on a majority
94
what is the first process involved in minority influence?
-consistency = the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time ( i.e. diachronic consistency ) and between all the individuals that form the minority ( i.e. synchronic consistency )
-this draws attention to the minority view and increases the amount of interest from other people as it makes them start to rethink their own views
95
what is the second process involved in minority influence?
-commitment = the minority demonstrates dedication to their cause / views, e.g. by making personal sacrifices through extreme activities, which makes the majority pay even more attention if some risk to the minority is created ( the augmentation principle )
-this shows that the minority is not acting out of self-interest and helps gain attention
96
what is the third process involved in minority influence?
-flexibility = the minority need to be prepared to adapt their point of view and accept reasonable and valid counterarguments
-Nemeth ( 1986 ) argued that being consistent and repeating the same arguments and behaviours is seen as rigid and off-putting to the majority, so there must be a balance between consistency and flexibility
97
what is the snowball effect?
-explains the process of social change as the minority view becomes the majority
-individuals think deeply about the minority position because it is new / unfamiliar
-over time, increasing numbers of people switch to the minority position, and the more this happens, the faster the rate of conversion and process of change
98
evaluate minority influence
-one strength is research supporting the importance of consistency
-another strength is research showing the role of deeper processing
-one limitation is that minority influence research often involves artificial tasks
-another limitation is that minority influence may not be a valid form of social influence
99
why is it a strength that there is research supporting the importance of consistency in minority influence?
-E = Moscovici et al.'s blue / green slide study ( 1969 ) showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion, and Wood et al. ( 1994 ) conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential
-E = this suggests that consistency is a major factor in minority influence
100
why is it a strength that there is research supporting the role of deeper processing in minority influence?
-E = in Martin et al.'s ( 2003 ) study, one group heard the opinion of a minority group whilst the other group heard the opinion of a majority group and after both groups were exposed to an opposing opinion, the group who had heard the minority view were significantly less likely to change their opinion to the new conflicting view
-E = this suggests that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect as it holds risk ( the augmentation principle ) and so forces the audience to reconsider their own views
-counterpoint = in research studies such as this one majority / minority groups are distinguished in terms of numbers, but there is more to majorities / minorities than just numbers ( e.g. power, status, commitment ), meaning research studies are limited in what they can tell us about minority influence in real-world situations
101
why is it a limitation that minority influence research often involves artificial tasks?
-E = Moscovici et al.'s task was identifying the colour of a slide which lacks mundane realism as it is far removed from how minorities try to change majority opinion in the real world e.g. in jury decision-making and political campaigning, outcomes are vastly more important, sometimes even a matter of life or death
-E = this means that findings of minority influence studies lack ecological validity because the extent to which they can be generalised to real life is limited
102
why is it a limitation that minority influence may not be a valid form of social influence?
-E = agreement with a consistent minority was only 8% in Moscovici et al.'s study, which suggests that minority influence is quite rare and not a useful concept
-E = therefore, minority influence is a relatively unusual form of social influence and may not be valid
-counterpoint = when participants wrote down their answers privately, they were more likely to agree with the minority view, which suggests that those who do go public must be the tip of the iceberg and hold their new views strongly ( internalisation ), therefore minority influence is valid as it can change people's views powerfully and permanently ( conversion )
103
what is meant by social change?
-when societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new beliefs and behaviours, e.g. accepting that the earth orbits the sun, women's suffrage, gay rights and environmental issues
104
what are the lessons from minority influence research?
-drawing attention to a situation by providing social proof of the problem
-consistency
-deeper processing of the issue = people begin to question the status quo ( i.e. existing state )
-the augmentation principle = personal risk indicates a strong belief and reinforces ( or augments ) their message
-snowball effect
-social cryptomnesia = people have a memory that social change has occurred but don't remember how it happened / the events leading to that change
105
what are the lessons from conformity research?
-Asch's research = introducing a dissenter broke the power of the majority and encouraged others to dissent, demonstrating the potential to ultimately lead to social change
-NSI = environmental and health campaigns exploit conformity by drawing attention to what the majority are doing, which appeals to NSI and encourages social change as people begin to conform to the majority
106
what are the lessons from obedience research?
-Milgram = introducing a disobedient role model ( in the variation where a confederate teacher refused to give shocks to the learner ) makes change more likely as the rate of obedience in genuine participants plummeted to 10%
-Zimbardo ( 2007 ) = social change can be created through gradual commitment as once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one so people drift into a new kind of behaviour
107
evaluate the role of social influence processes in social change
-one strength is research support for the role of NSI in social change
-another strength is that minority influence explains social change
-one limitation is that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change
108
why is it a strength that there is research support for the role of NSI in social change?
-E = Nolan et al. ( 2008 ) aimed to see if they could change people's energy-use habits so they hung messages on the front doors of houses every week for one month, with the key message being that most residents are trying to reduce their energy usage, and they found significant decreases in energy use compared to a control group who saw messages to save energy with no reference to other people's behaviour
-E = this shows that conformity can lead to social change through the operation of NSI and thus is a valid explanation of social change
-counterpoint = exposing people to social norms doesn't always change their behaviour, e.g. Foxcroft et al. ( 2015 ) reviewed 70 studies of programmes using social norms to reduce student alcohol intake and found that there was only a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency, showing that NSI doesn't always produce long-term social change
109
why is it a strength that minority influence explains social change?
-E = Nemeth ( 2009 ) claims that minority arguments cause people to engage in divergent thinking which is broad rather than narrow, involves the thinker actively searching for information and weighing up more options, leading to better decisions and creative solutions to social problems
-E = this shows that minorities are valuable because they stimulate new ideas and open people's minds
110
why is it a limitation that deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change?
-E = Mackie ( 1987 ) disagrees with the view that minority influence causes individuals in the majority to think deeply about an issue and presents evidence that it is majority influence that creates deeper processing because we believe that others think as we do, so when a majority thinks different, this creates pressure to think about their views
-E = this challenges a central element of minority influence, casting doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change
