Social Influence Flashcards
(22 cards)
Outline AO1 for Types of Conformity and Explanations
Types of Conformity - Kelman
- compliance: publicly agreeing but privately disagreeing, stops when group pressure disappears
- internalisation: valuing a group / want to be like them, can involve temporary public and private change in beliefs
- identification: deepest conformity, private beliefs also change as we think they are right and we want to be right
Explanations for Conformity:
- normative SI: conforming to be liked and accepted by the group or avoid rejection
- informative SI: conforming to be right and assuming others have more information
Outline AO3 for Types of Conformity and Explanations
+ RS for ISI - Lucas et al:
conformity to incorrect answers was higher when maths questions were more difficult which supports the idea that people conform when they are unsure
+ RS for NSI - Asch
Ps conformed to the incorrect answer even though the correct answer was unambiguous which shows that people will conform to avoid rejection and fit in even if they privately disagree
- Individual differences in NSI - McGhee and Teevan
students in high need of affiliation were more likely to conform which shows that the NSI explanation isnt applicable to everyone
- ISI and NSI can overlap
we cant always determine which explanation is operating, maybe both which reduces the explanatory power
e.g. Aschs P said they conformed for both informative and normative reasons
Outline AO1 for Aschs research into conformity
Procedure:
- 123 American male undergrads
- match stimulus line to one of the other three
- group of 6/8 confederates, naive P answers last or second to last
- confeds gave incorrect answer in 12/18 critical trials
Findings:
- P conformed to wrong answer 37% of the time
- 75% conformed atleast once
- 25% never conformed
- P conform due to NSI
Aschs variations:
- group size: conformity rose to 32% with 3 confeds and little change after increasing more and more, P got suspicious after too many, curvilinear relationship
- unanimity: dropped to 5.5% when one other confed gave different answer
- task difficulty: conformity increased when lines were more similar in size - role of ISI
Outline AO3 for Aschs research into conformity
+ RS for task difficulty - Lucas et al
conformity increased with harder maths questions
+ Practical value
can help to explain how group pressure influences decision making in real world
- Culture bias
Americans have an individualist culture: conformity may be higher in collectivist cultures like China so the findings cant be generalised to wider population
- Gender bias - Neto
study only used males, women found to be more conformist due to concern regarding social relationships and being accepted so findings cant be generalised to other genders
- Lacks historical validity - Perrin and Spencer 1980
repeated the study with British engineering students and only 1/396 conformed so the findings may be outdated and not applicable today
- Artificial task and situation, demand characteristics
Outline AO1 for Conformity to Social Roles - Zimbardo
Aim:
to investigate whether people will conform to the roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison
Procedure:
- 24 emotionally stable male volunteers randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard
- Prisoners arrested at home, given uniform and numbers, the guards were given uniform and sunglasses
- basement of Standford Uni
- planned for 2 weeks, lasted 6 days
Findings:
- guards became increasingly brutal e.g. harrassment, humiliation
- prisoners eventually became submissive e.g. signs of anxiety and distress
- one prisoner released on day 1 due to psychological breakdown
- two prisoners hunger striked
- P quickly conformed to their social roles
Outline AO3 for Conformity to Social Roles - Zimbardo
+ highly controlled
random assignment to roles, realistic mock prison which means a high internal validity as the behaviour is due to situation and not dispositional factors
- lack of realism - Banuazizi and Mohavedi
argued that P was acting based on stereotypes e.g. one guard claimed he was imitating a guard from Cool Hand Luke
+ counter:
90% of conversations were about prison life suggesting they genuinely believed they were in prison
- ethical issues
many P experienced psychological harm and as Zimbardo was both the researcher and prison superintendant, he didnt interfere due to conflict of interest
- Dispositional factors - Fromm
Guards: 1/3 were brutal, 1/3 were fair, 1/3 were nice which suggests the behaviour wasnt fully due to situation and that personality factors are involved
Outline AO1 for Obedience - Milgram
Aim:
investigating if ordinary people will obey an authority figure even if it means harming someone else
Procedure:
- 40 American male volunteers, 20-50 yrs old, told it was a study on learning (deception)
- participant = “teacher” / confederate = “learner”
- L is strapped in chair and “receiving shocks” for wrong answers from T
- T is instructed by experimenter to give increasing voltage shocks (15V - 450V)
- L gives pre-recorded reaction when “shocked” e.g. crying, screaming
- if T hesitates, E gives prods e.g. You must continue
Findings:
- 65% went all the way up to 450V
- all P went up to 300V - 12.5% stopped at 300V
- P showed signs of distress but most continued anyways
Conclusion:
people will obey an authority figure even if it means causing harm to someone else especially in a legitimate, authoritative setting
Outline AO3 for Obedience - Milgram
+ high internal validity
controlled lab, standardised procedures which minimises the effect of extraneous variables
+ replication and reliability of findings - Beauvois documentary
80% of P gave 460V - this shows that the findings of Milgrams have reliability and consistency
- low population validity
androcentric and ethnocentric bias as all P were american males so cant be generalised to women and collectivist cultures
- ethical issues
deception about study purpose, emotional distress to P as they believed they were causing harm, lack of informed consent
+ counter
Milgram debriefed all P and followed up longterm
Outline AO1 for Situational Variables affecting Obedience - Milgrams Variations
- Proximity of Learner
Original: T and L in diff rooms 65% obedience
Same room: dropped to 40%
Touch proximity: dropped to 30% - Proximity of Experimenter
Original: 65%
Over the phone: dropped to 20.5% + cheating - Location
Original: Yale Uni 65%
Run down block: dropped to 47.5%
- shows that the location affects the perception of legitimacy of authority - Uniform
Original: E wore lab coat
Casual clothes: dropped to 20%
- shows that appearance influences the perception of legitimacy of authority
Outline AO3 for Situational Variables affecting Obedience - Milgrams variation
+ RS for Uniform - Bickman
confed asked people in public to perform tasks wearing a security guard uniform vs casual clothes and people were more likely to obey the uniformed figure
+ high control
only one variable changed at each time which establishes a stronger cause and effect relationship
+ cross-cultural replications
studied in Dutch participants where they had to say stressful things to a confed desperate for a job - 90% obeyed
- culture bias
all variations done in America, could have diff outcomes in collectivist cultures where the obedience to authority is valued more
- lack of ecological validity
artificial tasks and doesnt apply to real life situations and effects of demand characteristics
- ethical concerns
deception + psychological harm
is it acceptable to harm P to obtain research?
Outline AO1 for Situational Explanations for Obedience
- Agentic State
- mental state where we feel no personality responsibility for our behaviour because we believe we are acting on the behalf of an authority figure
- the opposite is the autonomous state where we act independently and feel responsible
- agentic shifts occur when an individual shifts from autonomous state to agentic state usually due to being confronted by an authority figure who has a higher position the social hierarchy
- maintains obedience by shifting blame
- binding factors are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damage they’re doing, it helps them to stay in the agentic state and continue obeying e.g. T and L in diff rooms for Milgram’s baseline study - Legitimacy of Authority
- obedience to people we perceive to have legitimate power typically due to social hierarchies e.g. parents, police
- society teaches from childhood that authority should be respected
- obedience is more likely when authority seems legitimate
- destructive authority is when the legitimacy becomes destructive and cause harm to others e.g. Hitler
Outline AO3 for Situational Explanations for Obedience
+ RS for agentic state
P in Milgrams study asked who would be responsible for harm to the L and they said the experimenter which shows they are in the agentic state under authority pressure
+ RW app - My Lai Massacre
soldiers claimed they were just following orders which supports the agentic state and legitimacy of authority as explanations for obedience to immoral acts - destructive authority
- contradicting research
16/18 nurses disobeyed instructions from a doctor (authority figure) to administer excessive drug doses which shows they remained autonomous - incomplete explanation
agentic state doesnt explain why some people disobey legitimate authority e.g. criminals even tho a social hierarchy is clearly well established - limited explanatory power for destructive obedience
some obedience involved acting willingly and with enthusiasm e.g. Holocaust which suggest other factors contribute beyond legitimacy and authority
Outline AO1 for Dispositional Explanations for Obedience
Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et all, 1950
- states that obedience stems from personality and not the situation
- developed through the F-scale (Fascism) to measure authoritarian traits
Traits of the Authoritarian Personality:
- extreme respect for authority; submissive
- contempt for those of lower status / minorities
- conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender
- believe that society needs strong leaders to enforce traditional values
- view the world as black and white (right vs wrong)
Origins of the Authoritarian Personality:
- harsh, strict parenting:
high standards, conditional love and physical punishment
- the anger towards parents is repressed and displaced onto people they view as weaker e.g. minorities - psychodynamic expl
Outline AO3 for Dispositional Explanations for Obedience
+ RS Milgram and Elms
follow up study on Milgrams obedience study showed that P who obeyed up to 450V scored higher on the F-scale which supports a link between authoritarianism and obedience
- counter
correlation doesnt mean causation and there could be a third variable
- limited explanation
doesnt explain obedience of entire populations e.g. Nazis because not everyone had authoritarian personalities
- methodological issues with F-scale
suffers from response bias as all statements worded in the same direction so agreeing = inflation of score
- political bias of F-scale
only measures right wing authoritarianism and ignores left wing (extreme communism) so the theory is ideologically based and not a universal explanation
Outline AO1 for Resistance to Social Influence
- Social Support
Conformity:
- presence of a dissenter (non-conformist) helps others to resist conformity
- Aschs variation: conformity dropped when one confed gave a diff answer even if it was wrong
- breaking unanimity gives people the confidence to resist
Obedience:
- Milgrams variation: when one other “T” (confed) refused to obey, obedience dropped to 10%
- seeing someone else resist provides a model for the P to also resist - Locus of Control - Rotter
- dispostional explanation on how much control you feel over your own life
- a continuum, LOC is a scale
Internal LOC:
- belief that you control your own actions and outcomes
- more likely to resist pressure to conform or obey
- take responsibility
External LOC:
- beliefs that outcomes are determined by fate or luck etc
- more likely to conform or obey
- not a fixed trait, people vary depending on the situation
- more confident, more achievement-oriented and higher intelligence which leads to greater resistance to social influence
Outline AO3 for Resistance to Social Influence
+ RS for social support - Allen and Levine
conformity decreased with a dissenter in an Asch-type task, 64% of P resisted compared to only 3% when dissenter not present.
- counter for social support: when dissenter said he had sight problems, only 34% of P resisted showing social support doesn’t always lead to resistance
+ RS for LOC - Holland
repeated Milgrams study and measured Ps LOC
Internals: 37% didnt continue to 450V
Externals: only 23% resisted
- Contradictory evidence for LOC - Twenge
analysed LOC studies over 40 years and found that people became more external over time but also more resistant to obedience which challenges the link between resistance and internal LOC
- LOC may be exaggerated
LOC is more influential in unfamilar situations but in familiar situations, previous experiences and habits play a bigger role than LOC which suggests that LOC is not a full explanation
Outline AO1 for Minority Influence
- Consistency:
- minority must show stability in their views over time (diachronic consistency) and agreement within the group (synchronic consistency) - Commitment:
- minority must show dedication to their cause
- this shows that theyre not acting just out of self-interest and may influence the majority to hear them out - Flexibility:
- minority must not appear rigid or dogmatic
- they should be willing to compromise and adapt
- balance between consistency and flexibility is most persuasive - Conversion process:
- overtime people may change views privately after being exposed to a persuasive minority (internalisation)
- this forms the snowball effect
- the minority influence grows until it becomes the majority view
Outline AO3 for Minority Influence
+ RS for consistency - Moscovici
blue-green slide study
when confed were consistent, 32% of P gave the same wrong answer at least once
when inconsistent, agreement dropped to 1.25%
this shows that consistency is key to minority influence
+ RS for internalisation
Moscovici variation where P gave answers privately, and even more were influenced by the minority which shows that the minority influence causes internalisation and not just public compliance
- artificial task
Moscovicis study is not realistic or important to the P which limits the generalisability of findings
Outline AO1 for Moscovicis study into Minority Influence
Aim:
to investigate whether a consistent minority can influence a majoritys perception
Procedure:
- lab exp with 6 P; 4 real, 2 confed
- P shown 36 blue slides with varying brightness
- confeds said the slides were green everytime (consistency)
- also tested inconsistency (said green 24/36)
- P later asked to privately write down slide colours
Findings:
- consistent: P conformed on 8.42% of trials, 32% conformed at least once
- inconsistent: conformity dropped to 1.25%
- evidence of internalisation from private responses
Conclusion:
-minority can influence a majority when they are consistent with their views
Outline AO3 for Moscovicis study into Minority Influence
+ RS for consistency
this study helped establish the theoretical basis for how social change can occur via a minority
- low ecological validity
task not real, doesnt reflect the real world minority influence
- lacks generalisabilty
small sample size and doesnt reflect real life MI as in reality they face hostility
- ethical issues
P were deceived
Contrast with Nemeth who argued flexibility is also key
Outline AO1 for Social Influence and Social Change
social influence: process by which individuals and groups change eachothers behaviours, beliefs and attitudes
social change: whole societies adopt new attitudes and beliefs
How steps in minority social influence leads to social change
e.g. African-American Civil Rights Movement
1. drawing attention through social proof: civil rights marches helped to draw attention to the segregration between white and black people
- consistency: civil rights activists represented a minority of American population but their positions remained consistent
- deeper processing of the issue because the activism meant people thought more deeply about the injustice of the situation
- augmentation principle: people risked their lives many times for the cause e.g. freedom riders who sat in the buses they werent meant to to challenge the segregation
- snowball effect: activists eventually got the attention of the US government and more people started to gradually back the minoritys cause becoming the majority
- social cryptomnesia: when a social change has occurred but people do not remember where it came about from
Conformity research key points:
- importance of a dissenter as highlighted by ASchs variations because it breaks the majoritys power and encourages others to do the same which could potentially lead to social change
Obedience research key points:
- Milgrams research demonstrates importance of disobedient roles - when confed T disobeys, the genuine P started disobeying too
- Zimbardo suggested gradual commitment can be used to create social change as once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes harder to resist to the slightly bigger one and people drift into a new behaviour form
Outline AO3 for Social Influence and Social Change
+ RS for normative SI
Nolan: aim to see if ppls energy use habits would change
messages hung on houses stating most residents are trying to reduce their energy bills.
control: asks residents to save energy but no reference to other people
Findings:
significant decreases in energy usage by first group than control
+ MI explains social change
Nemeth: social change is due to the divergent thinking that they cause as people weigh up more arguments and think broader which leads to better decisions
- role of deeper processing
Mackie: states that deeper processing is caused by majority not minority as the minority are not influential enough to have that effect - barriers to social change
Bashir: people resist social change either way to avoid negative stereotypes
e.g. people refused to behave environmentally-friendly due to not wanting to be associated with the environmentalist stereotypes “tree-huggers”
