SOCIAL INFLUENCE 2.0

Question 1

Situational explanation for obedience

-agentic state

Answer 1

Perceive someone to be higher up on social hierarchy than us so we act like an agent for them
-Therefore take no responsibility for our actions but follow orders
-acting in a mental agentic state
-may feel sense of moral strain if what we are doing is wrong but we are powerless
Opposite of agentic state is autonomous state:idependent+have free will over our actions
Binding factors:factors of the situation which reduce our moral strain e.g reassuring ourselves it is not our responsibility

Question 2

Evaluation of agentic state

Answer 2

• proximity of victim:when learner was in same room,obedience dropped to 40%
• presence of allies:when two teachers rebelled, obedience dropped to 10%.When two teachers obeyed obedience went to 92.5%
• doesn’t account for dispositional factors.Obedience would of been 100%

Question 3

Situational explanation

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 3

• We obey when authority is higher on the social hierarchy

- Needs to be supported by an institutional framework:support from an institution

Question 4

evaluation of legitimacy of authority

Answer 4

Location:carried out in run down office, obedience dropped to 48%
Uniform:experimenter didn’t wear a lab coat obedience dropped to 20%
-ignores dispositional factors as obedience isn’t 100%

Question 5

Dispositional explanations

Authoritarian personality

Answer 5

Adorno:

• people have a personality type that makes them more obedient.
• people with stricter parents are more likely to have fascist views.Admire strength+authority, dislike weakness.

Question 6

Evaluation of authoritarian personality

Answer 6

+Elms and milgram found that Milgram participants who obeyed had higher F scores (test developed by Adorno).Implies fascist views
+Explains individual differences in obedience.Milgram found only 65% obedience so much individual differences
-correlation not causation.Lack of education
-Elms and milgram found no link between F scores and relationship with parents

Question 7

Resistance to social influence

Social support

Answer 7

-We are more likely to resist conformity+obedience if others are rebelling
-consequences+responsibility is divided between more people
Evaluation:
+Asch found that obedience dropped to 5% when participants had an allie
+Milgram found that obedience dropped to 10% when there was two teachers who rebelled
-only situational.Doesn’t account for dispositional factors

Question 8

Resistance to social influence

Locus of control

Answer 8

• personality (dispositional) characteristics.People with internal locus of control believe their actions are their own responsibility,less likely to conform
• People with external locus of control are more likely to believe in luck+fate.More likely to conform/obey

Evaluation:
+Avtigis:meta analysis of studies into the relationship between between locus of control and resistance.Found those with high internal LoC were less likely to obey
-only dispostional,doesn’t account for situational factors

Question 9

Minority influence

Answer 9

CHARACTERISTICS

• consistency
• commitment
• flexibility

Studies:
Moscovici-consistency:
-asked 172 female students to name the colour of a piece of blue card.36 trials+2 confederates.Group of 6,2 confederates.
condition 1:(consistent).Always said card was green.
condition 2:(inconsistent).24/36 times said card was green
Findings:consistent group had highest answers of green from majority (8%)
Evaluation:
+real world application
-lacks ecological validity
-lacks population validity:only female

Question 10

Stages to social change

Answer 10

1)drawing attention to the issue
2)role of conflict:people hear the issue
3)consistency:minority sticks to their views
4)Augmentation principle (commitment):minority must be willing to make sacrifices
5)snowball effect:some of majority get convinced and convince others
Social cryptoamnesia:after social change, people forget where change came from->helps maintain change