Social Influence Flashcards
(102 cards)
1
Q
How is conformity defined by Aronson?
A
A change in behaviour or belief caused by real or imagined group pressure.
2
Q
What are the three types of conformity?
A
Compliance, identification, and internalisation.
3
Q
What is compliance?
A
Compliance is the shallowest form of conformity where someone changes their public behaviour to fit in or avoid rejection, but privately disagrees. It is temporary and linked to normative social influence.
4
Q
What is identification?
A
Identification is when someone adopts the behaviours or beliefs of a group to build a relationship or sense of belonging. Private agreement may not always occur. It relates to social identity.
5
Q
What is internalisation?
A
Internalisation is the deepest form of conformity where individuals accept a group’s beliefs both publicly and privately. It leads to permanent attitude change and is linked to informational social influence.
6
Q
What are the two explanations for conformity?
A
Normative Social Influence (NSI) and Informational Social Influence (ISI).
7
Q
What is normative social influence (NSI)?
A
NSI is conformity based on the desire to be liked and accepted by others. It leads to superficial change (compliance) and is motivated by emotional reasons.
8
Q
What is informational social influence (ISI)?
A
ISI is conformity based on the desire to be correct when the right answer is unclear. It is driven by cognitive reasons (acceptance of new information) and leads to permanent change (internalisation).
9
Q
What was Asch’s (1951) procedure?
A
Groups of 8–10 male college students judged line lengths. Only one was a real participant; the others were confederates who gave wrong answers on critical trials.
10
Q
What were Asch’s key findings?
A
75% conformed at least once
5% conformed every time
Overall conformity rate: 32%
11
Q
What did Asch’s research suggest about why people conform?
A
People conform due to normative social influence — to avoid rejection or to gain social approval.
12
Q
How did group size affect conformity in Asch’s study?
A
1 confederate: 3% conformity
2 confederates: 13%
3 confederates: 33%
After 3+, adding more confederates made little difference.
13
Q
How did unanimity affect conformity?
A
When a confederate disagreed with the group, conformity dropped to 5.5%. This shows social support reduces conformity.
14
Q
How did task difficulty affect conformity?
A
Harder tasks (similar line lengths) increased conformity, suggesting greater reliance on others’ judgments (informational social influence).
15
Q
Why did Asch’s study have high internal validity?
A
It was a well-controlled lab experiment using standardised procedures.
16
Q
How does Perrin and Spencer’s research criticise Asch’s temporal validity?
A
They found very low conformity in 1980s British students, suggesting Asch’s findings may only apply to 1950s America.
17
Q
How is Asch’s study culturally biased?
A
It used American students from an individualistic culture. Meta-analyses show higher conformity in collectivist cultures.
18
Q
Why does Asch’s study lack mundane realism?
A
Judging line lengths is artificial and doesn’t reflect real social situations, reducing ecological validity.
19
Q
How does Asch’s original study support NSI?
A
Conformity occurred even when the correct answer was obvious, suggesting a desire to avoid rejection, not uncertainty.
20
Q
How does task difficulty support ISI?
A
When Asch made tasks harder, conformity increased, showing people rely more on others’ judgments when unsure.
21
Q
What are alternative explanations for conformity?
A
Dispositional factors like nAffiliation (strong need for approval) and low self-confidence increase conformity. High self-confidence or internal locus of control reduce it.
22
Q
Why is it difficult to separate NSI and ISI?
A
In real life, people may seek both social approval (NSI) and accurate information (ISI) at the same time, making the influences hard to distinguish.
23
Q
How is conformity defined by Aronson?
A
A change in behaviour or belief caused by real or imagined group pressure.
24
Q
What are the three types of conformity?
A
Compliance, identification, and internalisation.
25
What is compliance?
Compliance is the shallowest form of conformity where someone changes their public behaviour to fit in or avoid rejection, but privately disagrees. It is temporary and linked to normative social influence.
26
What is identification?
Identification is when someone adopts the behaviours or beliefs of a group to build a relationship or sense of belonging. Private agreement may not always occur. It relates to social identity.
27
What is internalisation?
Internalisation is the deepest form of conformity where individuals accept a group’s beliefs both publicly and privately. It leads to permanent attitude change and is linked to informational social influence.
28
What are the two explanations for conformity?
Normative Social Influence (NSI) and Informational Social Influence (ISI).
29
What is normative social influence (NSI)?
NSI is conformity based on the desire to be liked and accepted by others. It leads to superficial change (compliance) and is motivated by emotional reasons.
30
What is informational social influence (ISI)?
ISI is conformity based on the desire to be correct when the right answer is unclear. It is driven by cognitive reasons (acceptance of new information) and leads to permanent change (internalisation).
31
What was Asch’s (1951) procedure?
Groups of 8–10 male college students judged line lengths. Only one was a real participant; the others were confederates who gave wrong answers on critical trials.
32
What were Asch’s key findings?
75% conformed at least once
5% conformed every time
Overall conformity rate: 32%
33
What did Asch’s research suggest about why people conform?
People conform due to normative social influence — to avoid rejection or to gain social approval.
34
How did group size affect conformity in Asch’s study?
1 confederate: 3% conformity
2 confederates: 13%
3 confederates: 33%
After 3+, adding more confederates made little difference.
35
How did unanimity affect conformity?
When a confederate disagreed with the group, conformity dropped to 5.5%. This shows social support reduces conformity.
36
How did task difficulty affect conformity?
Harder tasks (similar line lengths) increased conformity, suggesting greater reliance on others’ judgments (informational social influence).
37
Why did Asch’s study have high internal validity?
It was a well-controlled lab experiment using standardised procedures.
38
How does Perrin and Spencer’s research criticise Asch’s temporal validity?
They found very low conformity in 1980s British students, suggesting Asch’s findings may only apply to 1950s America.
39
How is Asch’s study culturally biased?
It used American students from an individualistic culture. Meta-analyses show higher conformity in collectivist cultures.
40
Why does Asch’s study lack mundane realism?
Judging line lengths is artificial and doesn’t reflect real social situations, reducing ecological validity.
41
How does Asch’s original study support NSI?
Conformity occurred even when the correct answer was obvious, suggesting a desire to avoid rejection, not uncertainty.
42
How does task difficulty support ISI?
When Asch made tasks harder, conformity increased, showing people rely more on others’ judgments when unsure.
43
What are alternative explanations for conformity?
Dispositional factors like nAffiliation (strong need for approval) and low self-confidence increase conformity. High self-confidence or internal locus of control reduce it.
44
Why is it difficult to separate NSI and ISI?
In real life, people may seek both social approval (NSI) and accurate information (ISI) at the same time, making the influences hard to distinguish.
45
What are social roles?
Social roles are “a socially defined pattern of behaviour that is expected of persons who occupy a certain social position or belong to a particular social category.”
46
Give examples of identifiable social roles.
Doctor, teacher, police officer, politician, student, artist, prisoner, correctional officer.
47
What is identification in relation to social roles?
Identification is when individuals adopt the behaviour of a group they value and want to belong to. This provides a social identity — a sense of who they are — and by conforming to these social roles, they feel stronger group connection.
48
What was the aim of Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)?
To understand the psychological impact of situational forces by observing how psychologically healthy individuals would conform to assigned social roles (guards or prisoners) in a simulated prison environment.
49
What was the procedure of Zimbardo’s (1971) SPE?
• 24 male students from Stanford University volunteered.
• They were paid $15 per day.
• Psychological screening ensured they were emotionally stable and healthy.
• Participants were randomly assigned to the role of prisoner or guard.
50
What happened to the prisoners in the SPE?
• Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at home.
• They were deloused, given prison uniforms and ID numbers.
• Three prisoners shared each small prison cell.
• Prisoners had a schedule and limited rights (e.g., 3 meals/day, toilet trips, visits).
51
What happened to the guards in the SPE?
• Guards wore khaki uniforms, carried clubs and whistles, and wore reflective sunglasses to prevent eye contact.
• They were told to manage the prison without physically harming prisoners.
• Guards worked in teams of three, 8-hour shifts.
52
What was Zimbardo’s role during the study?
• Zimbardo acted as chief prison superintendent and lead researcher.
53
What were the key findings of Zimbardo’s SPE?
• Participants quickly conformed to their social roles.
• Prisoners showed signs of stress, anxiety, helplessness, and some suffered emotional breakdowns (e.g., released early).
• Guards became increasingly sadistic, aggressive, and domineering.
• The experiment was stopped after only 6 days (planned for 14) due to extreme emotional distress.
54
What conclusion did Zimbardo draw from the SPE?
• Behaviour was shaped by situational factors, not dispositional traits.
• Normal, healthy people can behave abusively or submissively when given powerful roles and a strong situational context.
55
How was the SPE well controlled?
• Psychological screening of participants ensured no underlying issues.
• Random allocation of prisoners and guards controlled for personality differences.
• This increases the study’s internal validity, suggesting behaviour changes were due to the situation.
56
How has Zimbardo’s research been useful?
• Helps explain events like the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
• Highlighted how institutional settings can lead to cruel behaviours.
• Led to practical reforms in military and prison training.
57
How did Reicher and Haslam (2006) challenge Zimbardo’s findings?
• Their BBC Prison Study found that prisoners did not automatically conform.
• Some guards did not act oppressively, and participants maintained their personal identities.
• Suggests that social roles have limited influence, and individuals retain agency and moral choice.
58
How did Zimbardo’s dual role cause issues?
• Zimbardo acted as both superintendent and researcher, risking experimenter bias.
• His involvement may have influenced participants’ behaviour (they may have acted how they thought he expected = demand characteristics).
59
What evidence supports demand characteristics?
• Later analysis of video footage showed that some guards acted in ways matching stereotypical prison guard behaviour, not natural behaviour.
• This casts serious doubt on the validity of the findings.
60
What ethical criticisms were made of the SPE?
• Participants experienced significant psychological harm.
• Zimbardo continued the experiment despite obvious emotional distress (e.g., breakdowns, extreme stress).
• Highlights the need for strict ethical guidelines to protect participants.
61
What is obedience?
Obedience is behaviour in compliance with a direct command, often issued by a person in a position of authority.
62
What was the background to Milgram’s (1960s) study?
Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why ordinary Germans obeyed Nazi orders during the Holocaust. Adorno theorised that Germans had a more obedient disposition (personality), but Milgram believed that obedience is a universal human behaviour likely to occur in the right situation.
63
Outline the procedure of Milgram’s (1963) obedience study.
Milgram advertised the study as a memory experiment to avoid bias. Participants met a scientist and another participant (both actors). Roles of 'teacher' (real participant) and 'learner' (actor) were randomly assigned. Participants had to deliver electric shocks for wrong answers, escalating voltage by 15V with each mistake (up to 450V). Fake shocks were used; at 300V the learner would bang on the wall and then go silent.
64
What were Milgram’s (1963) findings?
100% of participants shocked up to 300 volts. 65% of participants continued to 450 volts (maximum shock). Participants were visibly stressed. Milgram concluded most people obey authority even when it leads to harm.
65
What is the Agentic State?
A mental state where the individual sees themselves as an agent for an authority figure, not feeling guilt or responsibility for their actions. This contrasts with the autonomous state, where individuals act according to personal principles.
66
What is the Agentic Shift?
The change from an autonomous state to an agentic state, often triggered by the presence of an authority figure.
67
What is Legitimacy of Authority?
Through socialisation, individuals learn to accept authority figures’ right to give orders. Authority is communicated through visible symbols like uniforms and settings such as courts or police stations.
68
How did Proximity affect obedience in Milgram’s variations?
When instructions were given via telephone (instead of face-to-face), obedience dropped from 65% to 21%. Physical distance reduced the authority figure’s influence.
69
How did Location affect obedience in Milgram’s variations?
When the study was moved from Yale University (high-status) to a run-down office block, obedience dropped from 65% to 47.5%. Lower prestige reduced legitimacy of authority.
70
How did Uniform affect obedience in Milgram’s variations?
When the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary person in regular clothes (no lab coat), obedience dropped to 20%.
71
What methodological criticisms were raised against Milgram’s study?
Lacked mundane realism (shock generator not realistic). Low ecological validity (lab setting, not everyday tasks). Demand characteristics (participants guessed shocks were fake). Lack of generalisability (original samples were all male, American).
72
What is the significance of 35% resistance in Milgram’s study?
A significant proportion (35%) resisted the authority figure, suggesting obedience is not only due to situational factors (agentic state, legitimacy of authority) but also dispositional factors like authoritarian personality.
73
What are standardised procedures and why were they important in Milgram’s research?
Milgram used pre-recorded responses and strict scripts to ensure each participant had the same experience. Blass (2012) confirmed Milgram’s findings as reliable across eight non-US replications (65.9% obedience) and US studies (61%).
74
What did Bickman (1974) find in his field experiment on obedience and uniforms?
Guard uniform: 89% obedience. Milkman uniform: 57% obedience. Civilian clothes: 33% obedience. This supported the idea that visible symbols like uniforms increase perceived legitimacy of authority.
75
What did Sheridan and King (1972) find when using real shocks on puppies?
13 male and 13 female participants ordered to shock puppies. 54% of males and 100% of females delivered the maximum shock. Many participants cried, showing high emotional stress. This suggested Milgram’s results were genuine, not just demand characteristics.
76
What is the Authoritarian Personality according to Adorno?
A dispositional explanation where individuals have exaggerated respect for authority, are highly obedient, rigid in thinking, conform to traditional values, and show intolerance for those seen as weaker.
77
How did Adorno (1950) measure Authoritarian Personality?
Using the F-Scale (Fascism Scale). Those scoring high identified with strong people, were hostile to those they saw as weak, and showed dogmatic views (no shades of grey in right/wrong).
78
What are the three factors measured by Adorno’s F-Scale?
Conventionalism: Conformity to traditional norms and values. Authoritarian submission: Obedience and respect for authority figures. Authoritarian aggression: Hostility towards those defying norms.
79
What did Milgram’s study suggest about situational vs dispositional factors?
In Milgram’s study, 35% of participants resisted the authority figure. This cannot be explained by situational factors alone. Adorno’s theory highlights that obedience levels can vary from person to person, suggesting dispositional factors like the authoritarian personality also influence obedience.
80
What did Elms and Milgram (1966) find about authoritarian personality?
Elms and Milgram studied 20 obedient males who had given the highest shocks and 20 defiant males. Obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F-scale (authoritarian personality test). Obedient participants tended to dehumanise and hold negative attitudes towards the learner, seeing the experimenter as more knowledgeable and trustworthy.
81
How did Adorno (1950) explain the development of an authoritarian personality?
Adorno suggested that authoritarian personalities develop due to harsh, strict upbringing styles (abusive childhoods). Obedient behaviour becomes deeply rooted early in life. This theory is supported by Milgram, Bickman, and other researchers showing many people can be highly obedient.
82
What are criticisms of the F-Scale as a measure of authoritarian personality?
Response bias: Acquiescence bias (agreeing with all questions). Artificial link: High authoritarian scores may reflect political views rather than actual obedience tendency. Political bias: F-Scale may unfairly link authoritarianism only with right-wing political views.
83
What is a criticism of relying solely on authoritarian personality theory?
It risks stereotyping. Complex historical events (like WW2) are oversimplified into personality flaws rather than considering wider social factors. Ignores how social norms, peer pressure, or legal forces can cause widespread obedience among non-authoritarian individuals.
84
Resistance to social influence
Resistance to social influence is the ability of individuals to oppose the pressure to conform to a majority group or obey an authority figure, maintaining personal autonomy and integrity in their thoughts, decisions, and actions.
85
Resistance to social influence: Conformity – Asch
In Asch’s study, the overall conformity rate across all critical trials was 32%. However, there were significant individual differences. 25% of participants resisted the pressure to conform on every critical trial.
86
Resistance to social influence: Obedience – Milgram
In Milgram’s study, the overall obedience rate was 65%. However, 35% of participants resisted the pressure to obey by refusing to deliver the full 450-volt shock.
87
Explanations for resistance to social influence
• Social support (a situational explanation)
• Locus of control (a dispositional explanation)
88
Social support explanation
Social support is the presence of others who defy authority figures or oppose majority opinion. Even a single ally can significantly reduce the perceived risk of nonconformity or disobedience, giving individuals the confidence to resist majority pressure or authoritarian commands.
89
Diffusion of responsibility in social support
Social support is associated with the diffusion of responsibility; the more people who disobey or dissent, the less severe the consequences seem to be, encouraging further resistance.
90
Resistance to Conformity with Social Support
Individuals with a non-conformist ally are more likely to resist conforming to group pressure, as the ally breaks the group’s unanimity and creates an alternate group to belong to.
91
Resistance to Obedience with Social Support
Individuals with a disobedient role model are more likely to resist obeying the orders of an authority figure because the role model challenges the legitimacy of authority.
92
Milgram’s variation – social support in obedience
In Milgram’s variation, where participants had support from two confederate “teachers” who refused to continue, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to just 10%.
93
Asch’s variation – social support in conformity
In Asch’s unanimity variation, when a confederate broke the group’s unanimity, the conformity rate dropped from 32% to 5.5%.
94
Evaluation of social support explanation
• Social support is incomplete: 10% of participants in Milgram’s variation and 5.5% of critical trials in Asch’s variation still obeyed/conformed despite social support.
• Other factors like locus of control or authoritarian personality may explain resistance.
95
Locus of Control (Rotter, 1966)
Locus of Control refers to an individual’s belief about the causes of their successes and failures. It measures whether people attribute outcomes internally (to themselves) or externally (to outside forces).
96
Internal locus of control
Individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they have personal control over their lives and outcomes. They tend to attribute success/failure to their own efforts, seek information, and are proactive.
97
External locus of control
Individuals with an external locus of control believe that external factors like fate, luck, or powerful others control their lives. They may feel less empowered to resist social pressures.
98
Resistance to Conformity and Locus of Control
Individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist conforming to group pressure because they trust their independent judgments.
99
Resistance to Obedience and Locus of Control
Individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist obeying authority figures, as they feel independent and personally responsible for their actions.
100
Holland (1967) – Replication of Milgram
Holland assessed participants for their locus of control.
• 37% of those with an internal LOC refused to continue to the highest shock level.
• Compared to only 23% of those with an external LOC. However, 63% of internals still obeyed, suggesting LOC is only a partial explanation.
101
Spector (1983) – Questionnaire study
Spector studied 157 undergraduate participants using a questionnaire measuring LOC and conformity to normative and informational social pressure.
• A statistically significant correlation was found: individuals with an internal LOC were more likely to resist normative social influence.
• However, internals and externals were equally likely to conform to informational social influence.
102
Limitation of locus of control as an explanation
• LOC is only correlational.
• Other factors (e.g., social anxiety, personal morality, social status) may also explain resistance.
• Individuals with higher social status may feel more empowered to resist social pressure.
