Social Influence

Question 1

3 types of conformity

Answer 1

INTERNALISATION
IDENTIFICATION
COMPLIANCE

Question 2

INTERNALISATION:

Answer 2

When person values group so they adjust opinions to agree publicly+privately all the time.
Often permanent+ deep conformity

Question 3

IDENTIFICATION:

Answer 3

Conforming bc we value a group so we change opinion to fit in, only publicly+privately change when with the group
Between shallow+deep

Question 4

COMPLIANCE:

Answer 4

Going along with others in public but dont privately change behaviour > superficial change
Shallow conformity

Question 5

2 Explanations for conformity

Answer 5

Deutsch+Gerard developed this
-Informational Social Influence:Conforming to who you think is correct+you doubt yourself (Cognitive process).Most likely to occur when people are new to things + dont have firm ideas or when having to make quick decisions.
-Normative social influence:Occurs to gain social approval+ don’t want to be rejected (Emotional process)
Most likely to occur with strangers where you fear rejection or with friends where you require social approval.

Question 6

Evaluation of explanation for conformity

Answer 6

• Supporting research: ISI is supported by Lucas et Al, gave maths questions to students which were easy or hard +rated maths ability. People who rated ability as poor had conformed to incorrect answers in hard qu+shows ppl conform to ISI when they dont know answers to things
• Individual differences in NSI:McGhee+Teevan found students who had high need of affiliation=likely to conform. This means people who dont care about being liked wont be affected as much by NSI but the explanation doesn’t say this.
• ISI+NSI work together: Asch’s study shows when there is one dissenter, NSI is reduced as social support is present or ISI is reduced due to alternative info so we cant be sure whats in use. Limits exp because they suggest it is a two process model where only one is in use.

Question 7

Aschs experiment

Answer 7

AIM:investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.
PROCEDURE:Participants were 123 male American undergrads who were tested individually in group 6-8.+lab experiment. Were shown 2 white cards with one line on one and 3 on another then asked which one was the same as first.Participant in each group were alone with confederates, they didn’t know were confederates.
All confeds gave the wrong answer at the same time+ppt took place in 18 trials+12 were critical
FINDINGS:Ppt gave wrong answer 36.8% of the time
25% didnt conform+75% conformed once at least.
‘Asch Effect’-extent to which ppt conform when unambiguous+interviews after said they conform to avoid rejection (NSI).

Question 8

Aschs variations

Asch replicated this study in variations to see if conformity increased or decreased

Answer 8

1. Group Size- How large the group is impacts conformity. Asch found with 3 confederates, conformity rose to 31.8% but adding more made no difference. Groups as big as 3 impacts conformity but no more.
2. Unanimity- A dissenter impacts conformity. Asch added a new confederate who disagreed which reduced conformity by a quarter. Conformity depends on unanimity
3. Task Difficulty-Harder the task, the more ISI leads to conformity. Asch made the standard line more similar to the other 3 which increased conformity.

Question 9

Evaluation of Asch

Answer 9

• Outdated experiment:Perrin+Spencer recreated this study with engineering students in the uk+found less conformity, only one conformed out of 396 trials. Asch did his study in 1950s, a conformist society but has changed so its inconsistent which means its not relevant, lacks temporal validity.
• Artificial setting:May have guessed aim+demand characteristics. Also lacks ecological validity so doesn’t resemble real life situations.
• Limited applications:Only tested American men. Other research suggests women are more conformist but Asch hasn’t consulted this. America is a individualist culture so this may not generalise to collectivist cultures+ may be an imposed etic

Question 10

Zimbardo- Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 10

Aim- Are guards brutal due to sadistic personalities or because of the situation
Procedure-Made a mock prison in basement of Stanford university. Advertised for male students in newspaper who wanted to volunteer+ seen as emotionally stable after psychological testing.They were randomly assigned as prisoner or guard. To make it more real, they arrested prisoners+ strip searched+deloused and given a uniform and number. Guards had their own uniform including wooden club, handcuffs and keys +had total control.Their social roles were divided.
-Findings: At the start the guards didnt abuse their power but soon began to leading to the study ending at 6 days when it shouldve lasted 2 weeks. 2 days in prisoners rebelled by swearing at guards this is what they believed their social role to be. Guards began harassing them eg by waking them up to do roll call in night. Guards became more brutal+prisoners more scared.One prisoner went on hunger strike+guards tried to force feed
Conclusion-Situation + interaction influences behaviour + leads to conforming to social roles

Question 11

Evaluation of Zimbardo’s SP experiment

Answer 11

High control: Due to the psychological test, individual differences avoided as only emotionally stable participants were used - strength. participants acts wasnt personality but because of situational factors

• Overexaggerates power: Fromm states only a third of guards behaved brutally, a further third acted fairly the rest tried to help prisoners. Therefore dispositional factors may be more relevant
• Lacked realism: Banuazizi+Mohavedi argue ppt were play-acting based on their personal stereotypes of that role and acted accordingly not by conforming. EG one guard said he based his actions from a movie he saw(acting how they think is right) Lacks internal validity
• Real life app: Can avoid people abusing their power by training authoritative figures to ensure ppl dont act how they think the role is

Question 12

Agentic State

Answer 12

Milgram- People obey because they believe they’re acting as an ‘agent’ on the behalf of the authority so doesnt take responsibility

Question 13

Autonomous State

Answer 13

-Opposite of agentic, are independent+take responsibility for actions

Question 14

Agentic Shift

Answer 14

-The shift from autonomy to agency (independent choices to acting as an agent)

Question 15

Binding factors

Answer 15

• Are why people STAY in agentic state when they dont want to
• Aspects of situation lets them minimise moral strain or blame the victim or deny damage done

Question 16

Legitimacy of Authority

Answer 16

-Authority figures which are agreed by society so they are seen as legitimate. For an example, parents.

Question 17

Destructive Authority

Answer 17

-Authority figures use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes and make people do things they don’t want to. eg be cruel to people

Question 18

Evaluation of agentic state

Answer 18

• Research support for legitimate authority: Bickmans study supports this, he found people were more likely to obey a guard than a civillian or milkman because they have legitimate high authority.
• Supports as explanation for obedience: Blass+Schmitt showed students Milgrams study+asked who was responsible, they all said experimenter bc he had the authority and the ppt acted on his behalf
• Limited explanation: Some people dont obey and go through agentic shift, Milgram doesnt explain this more research needed. Hofling shows some nurses didnt obey
• Lacks ecological validity as Milgram used his lab study to explain the agentic state but in real life people arent asked to do extreme things so it cant be generalised

Question 19

Milgram’s obedience experiment

Answer 19

PROCEDURE:-40 Male pp.Volunteer sampling, pp from ad in USA
-RIgged draw, confederates=learners+pp=teachers
-Teacher asks questions, if learner answers wrong, they get a shock,this increases in volts as they get more wrong
-Teacher couldnt see confeds when shocking, they could hear only+were shown them being put in chair(realistic)
-Starts at 15v+ends at 450v, pp were told this
-If hesitating, 4 prods used by experimenter: 1, please continue,2.experiment needs you to go on,3.its essential you continue and 4.No other choice you must go on
FINDINGS: No pp stopped below 300v.
-12.5% stopped at 300v, 65% continued to 450v
-Observation showed tension in pp (shaking, sweating, stuttering)
-pp debriefed+sent questionnaire 84% said they were glad to partake

Question 20

Milgrams obedience experiment evaluation

Answer 20

• Only male pp used from USA=gender bias, androcentric: cant be generalised to females as they may not react in the same way and also culture bias as its conducted in an individualistic culture > needs cultural relativism.
• Low internal validity: the pp didnt believe it was real and weren’t that conscious. The record tapes show this as pp show doubts. Gave demand characteristics bc they were paid $4.50
• Good external validity:Although its a lab exp, the relationship between pp+experimenter applies to real life situations. Hofling found 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed to doctors unjustified demands.
• Ethical issues:PP were decepted into believing shocks were real which led to harm as they showed tension, prods makes the right to withdraw given questionable.

Question 21

Situational Variables

Milgram did variations of his study to see if obedience increases/decreases

Answer 21

Proximity
Location
Uniform

Question 22

Proximity (situational variable)

Answer 22

• How close they were together
• Teacher+learner put in adjoining rooms in original, in variation, were in same room- Obedience dropped from 65% to 40%
• In touch proximity (teacher forced hand on electic plate) obedience fell to 30%
• When experimenter wasnt physically present, it dropped to 20.5%

Question 23

Location (situational variable)

Answer 23

• Changing place of where study was conducted
• Original study in Yale uni, variation in run down building.
• Experimenter was seen to have less authority
• Obedience dropped form 65% to 47.5%

Question 24

Uniform (situational variable)

Answer 24

• How experimenter was presented
• Original study, Milgram wore a grey lab coat
• In variation, experimenter was called away due to inconvenient phone call then ordinary member of public(confed) took over,
• Obedience fell to 20% from 65%

Question 25

Situational Variables Evaluation

Answer 25

- Research support for uniform: Bickman conducted study where 3 confederates dressed as guard, milkman or civillian gave same instructions to the public. Guard was obeyed most bc his uniform was most authoritative. - Cross cultural replications:Has been replicated in other cultures, Miranda et Al found 90% obedience in Spanish (collectivist) students so it can be generalised to other cultures but Smith + Bond argue these are still developed western cultures. - Lacks internal validity: Holland says pp are even more likely to guess it is fake due to extra manipulation so they may have realised deception+acted accordingly - Support for uniform+location- Hofling found nurses obeyed doctors unjustified demands 21/22 obeyed

Question 26

Authoritarian Personality

Answer 26

``` PROCEDURE:Adorno studied cause of obedient personality. PP were 2000 middle class white americans. -Adorno developed the F-scale which measures authoritarian personality. FINDINGS: Pp with authoritarian leanings (high on f-scale) had despised the weak, had fixed beliefs on stereotypes+were prejudiced. ```

Question 27

Authoritarian characteristics

Answer 27

- Obedient+respect authority - Submissive to higher up - Traditional+stereotypical beliefs - Dislike people with lower status

Question 28

Origins of authoritarian personality

Answer 28

- Forms from childhood due to harsh parenting. | - This creates resentment+hostility which eventually get displaced onto the weaker or lower

Question 29

Evaluation of authoritarian personality

Answer 29

- Research support: Milgram interviewed those who scored high on f-scale and found a correlation between authoritarian personality and obedience but this doesnt mean causation so there may be a third factor - Limited explanation: Doesnt explain obedient behaviour of the majority in a country, unlikely they all are authoritarian, theory doesnt explain this. Social identity theory suggests they do this as they have common interests. eg in nazi germany - Methodological problems:All f-scale items are worded in one direction so u can get a high score by ticking the same box+showing acquiescence bias-low internal v - Correlation not causation: High correlations between authoritarian personality+prejudice but it doesnt mean they cause eachother it may just be a third variable like low education so it lacks validity

Question 30

Social support in resistance to social influence

Answer 30

- Social support helps resist conformity. Aschs study supports this - Social support helps resist obedience. Milgrams variation showed decrease of obedience from 65 to 10% when someone else disobeyed too

Question 31

Locus of Control (LOC)-Rotter

Answer 31

-2 types of people, externals+internals. They lay on a continuum with one end as high external+one end as high internal.

Question 32

Internals (loc)

Answer 32

- Believe what happens to them is because of their own actions - More likely to resist pressures to conform or obey as they take responsibility for their own actions - Often more intelligent, confident and achievement oriented

Question 33

Externals (loc)

Answer 33

- Believe what happens is due to external factors which are out of their control like fate. - More likely to conform or obey as they dont take responsibility - Often self-conscious+need social approval.

Question 34

Social support evaluation

Answer 34

- Research support for conformity: Allen+Levine found conformity decreased in asch style study when there was a dissenter-even when they wore thick glasses+said they cant see very well - Research support for obedience: Garrison et al found higher levels of resistance in study compared to milgrams. PP were in groups+had to make evidence to help a smear campaign, 29/33 resisted+disobeyed as of peer support

Question 35

LOC evaluation

Answer 35

- Supports link between loc+resistance to obedience: Holland replicated milgrams study+measured whether theyre internal/external. 37% of internals+23% of externals resisted. Internals resist more+high validity - Contradictory research: Twenge et al analysed data from american obedience studies over 40 yrs+found ppl are more resistant to obedience but also more external. This questions LOC as if it were true we would be more internal.

Question 36

Minority influence

Answer 36

Refers to minority influencing the majority with their ideas which are likely to become internalised + majority view eg homosexuality

Question 37

Moscovici minority influence study

Answer 37

PROCEDURE-PP were shown 36 slides which were explicitly different shades of BLUE+asked what colour they were. -In first part, 2 confederates consistently said the slides were GREEN. -In the second part, the 2 confederates said green 24 times+blue 12 times+control group used to compare RESULTS: 0.25% of control group said green, in inconsistent group 1.25% said green and in consistent group 8.42% said green -When consistent, greater minority influence is exerted

Question 38

To create minority influence:

Answer 38

Consistency Commitment Flexibility Process of Change

Question 39

Consistency

Answer 39

- To consistently keep the same view+voice it - Synchronic consistency (saying same thing) + diachronic consistency (saying over long time) makes people rethink their views+consider minority

Question 40

Commitment

Answer 40

-Minorities sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention which often risks them, this shows commitment to their belief. This increases further interest. Known as AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE

Question 41

Flexibility

Answer 41

Nemeth argues a balance is required between consistency+flexibility. Being just consistent may be seen as negative so they need to be able to adapt slightly+ accept reasonable arguments to appeal

Question 42

Process of change

Answer 42

- People switch from minority to majority. - Snowball effect occurs- more people joining on - This is social change

Question 43

Evaluation of Minority Influence

Answer 43

- Artificial: Supporting studies like from Moscovici, lack ecological validity+mundane realism so it cant be generalised to real life which is more complicated - Support for consistency: Moscovici shows when minority are consistent, impact is created. Meta-analysis shows the same - Support for internalisation: In a variation of moscovicis study, pp wrote responses down, found they privately agreed with minority but didnt publicly say as they didnt want to be associated with them. - Limited real life app: Research support is more trivial when in real life its more complicated for an example, commitment is often involved which isnt shown in studies

Question 44

6 stages of social change

Answer 44

1. Drawing attention 2. Consistency 3. Deeper processing 4. Augmentation principle 5. Snowball effect 6. Social cryptoamnesia

Question 45

1.Drawing attention

Answer 45

Getting attention through social proof of problem eg marches+demonstrations

Question 46

2.Consistency

Answer 46

Members of minority must be in agreement + views must be same over long period of time

Question 47

3.Deeper processing

Answer 47

Majority's attention is drawn+think about issue on a deeper level

Question 48

4.Augmentation principle

Answer 48

Where minority risk them self + make personal sacrifice to prove they arent acting of self-interest+ change is needed

Question 49

5.Snowball effect

Answer 49

Majority begins to internalise minority message so minority becomes bigger and bigger till it becomes majority

Question 50

6.Social Cryptoamnesia

Answer 50

The minority idea is now a social norm, source of message is forgotten although change is acknowledged

Question 51

Lessons from conformity research-Asch

Answer 51

- In variations, when one confederate gave the right answer, it broke power of majority+encouraged others to dissent which could lead to social change - Environmental health campaigns exploit conformity processes using normative social influence, eg saying others are recycling so you should too or print normative messages

Question 52

Lessons from obedience research-Milgram

Answer 52

- In variation where confederate teacher refused to give shock to learner allowed other teachers to disobey, obedience dropped highly. - Obedience can be used to create social change through gradual commitment where when one small instruction is obeyed its harder to disobey a bigger one - People drift into a new behaviour

Question 53

Social Change evaluation

Answer 53

- Research support has methodological flaws: Moscovici, Asch and Milgrams studies which explain social change are all lab based so lacks mundane realism+ecological validity so explanation may not be valid - Support for NSI processes+social change- Nolan found significant decrease in energy use when ppl were told others were reducing energy usage. This suggests it can be applied to real life+ conformity leads to social change - Minority influence is only indirectly effective: Nemeth says influence is likely to be indirect+delayed as attentions only given to issue at hand not the bigger picture. Delayed because effects aren't seen for a while. Influence is limited - Role of deeper processing: Mackie argues that majority holds a certain view + minority begin deeper processing as they reject that view.