social influence Flashcards
(64 cards)
1
Q
What are the three types of conformity?
A
- Compliance
- Identification
- Internalisation
2
Q
What is compliance? (3)
A
- ‘going along with others’ in public, privately not changing opinions (superficial change)
- changed behavior stops when group pressure stops
- NSI
3
Q
What is identification? (4)
A
- conforming to behaviour of a group because we value the group, identify with it and want to be a part of it
- publicily change our opinions/behaviour to fit in, even if we don;t privately agree with everything group stands for
- NSI
4
Q
What is internalisation? (4)
A
- when person actually accepts groups norms
- results in private change and public change of opinions and behaviour
- change usually permanent- attitudes have been internalised so even when pressure stops, changed behavior continues
- ISI
5
Q
What are the two explanations for conformity?
A
- Informational social influence (ISI)
- Normative social influence (NSI)
6
Q
What is informational social influence (ISI)? When does it usually occur? (4)
A
- when we go along with a groups behaviour in order to be accurate
- about the need to be right
- usually happens when what’s right and wrong is ambiguous, decisions have to be made quickly or if group is regarded to be more ‘expert’
- presume others are right
7
Q
What is normative social influence (NSI)? When does it usually occur? (3)
A
- when we go along with a groups behaviour in order to be liked
- to avoid social rejection we go along with group norms
- usually occurs in unfamiliar situations and with people you know as you are more concerned about social approval from friends rather than strangers
8
Q
Asch (1951) Conformity research:
Aim
A
Aim: To examine the extent to which social pressure from a majority affects individual conformity
9
Q
State a strength of NSI
A
There’s research to support:
NSI- Asch (1951)- pp conformed to wrong answers because they felt self-conscious giving right answer and were afraid of disapproval
Conformity rates fell to 12.5% when pp wrote answers instead- supports NSI as they were conforming to avoid rejection
10
Q
State one limitation of ISI (and NSI)
A
There’s individual differences:
- Asch (1955) found only 28% of students conformed but other pp conformed 37%
- Sugg people who are knowledgeable/confident are less influenced by the apparent ‘right’ view of group- suggests different people respond differently to ISI
11
Q
State a limitation for NSI and ISI
A
- It’s an oversimplified approach
- isn’t always possible to know if its NSI or ISI at work (could it be both)
12
Q
Asch (1951) Research
Procedure: (6 steps)
A
Procedure:
1) recruited 123 American male students
2) pp sat round a table and asked to look at 3 different line lengths- one of the lines was the same length as standard line
3) ‘real’ pp in a group of 6-8 confederates
4) took in turns to call out which line they thought was same length as standard line - real pp always answering last
5) real pp didn’t know others were confederates
6) confederates instructed to give 12/18 wrong answers
13
Q
Asch (1951) Research
Findings (3 stats)
A
- pp avg. rate of conformity on critical trials was 36.8%
- 1/4 never conformed
- 3/4 conformed at least once
14
Q
Asch (1951) Research
Conclusions (2)
A
- Most pp said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI) but continued to trust their own opinions privately (compliance)
- Stats show high levels of conformity proving the Asch effect- extent to which people conform in ambiguous situations
15
Q
What are the 3 variables that affect conformity?
A
- Group size (though doesn’t change much by adding more than 3)
- Unanimity
- Task difficulty
16
Q
How did Asch test the three variables that affect conformity in his 1955 experiment?
(Procedure)
A
Group size: no. of confederates varied between 1-15
Unanimity: Introduced truthful confederate or untruthful dissenter
Task difficulty: made line judging task harder- lines more similar
17
Q
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Group size findings:
A
Group size: with 3 confederates, conformity to wrong answer 31.8%
Adding more confederates made little difference
18
Q
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Unanimity findings:
A
Unanimity: presence of dissenter reduced conformity (whether the dissenter was right or wrong)
Having dissenter allowed pp to behave more independently
19
Q
Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity
Task Difficulty findings:
A
Task Difficulty: conformity increased when task got more difficult.
ISI plays a greater role when task gets harder- situations more ambiguous so look to others for guidance and assume they’re right
20
Q
State the three limitations of Asch (1955) Variables affecting conformity experiment?
A
-Task was artificial - lacks ecological validity as it doesn’t generalise to everyday situations
-Findings only apply to certain groups (only men were tested- Neto (1955) sugg that women conform more -care more about acceptance?)
Ethical issues - but if they didn’t manipulate, would it be valid?
21
Q
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Aim:
A
Aim: to test wether the brutaility of prison guards was the result of their personalities or wether it was created by the situation (Abu Ghraib)
22
Q
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Procedure: (5 step)
A
Procedure:
- Recruited 24 ‘emotionally stable’ students determined by psychological testing
- Randomly assigned roles of guards and prisoners
- (Increase realism) ‘priosners’ mock arrested- issued a uniform and number
- (de-individualisation) prisonerns’ called by numbers, guards had uniform (inc. mirror shades and club)
- Guards told they had complete control over the prisoners e.g deciding if they could go to the toilet and heavily regulating them
23
Q
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Findings: (4)
A
Findings:
- Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled- tore uniforms, shouted and swore at guards
- Guards shut it down forcefully- fire extinguishers
- Guards took their roles with enthusiasm and highlighted the power they had over them by harassing the prisoners and harshly punishing them for slight misdemeanours (e.g putting them in ‘the hole’)
- Guards’ behaviour threatened prisoners’ mental/physical health- prisoners became anxious and depressed, 3 prisoners released early due to psychological disturbance)
- Study stopped after six days instead of 14 days.
24
Q
Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Conclusions: (3)
A
Conclusions:
- showed the power of the situation influences people’’s behaviour
- guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to social roles
- guards became more aggressive as they conformed more
25
State one strength of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
Researchers had control over some variables-
ppt were emotionally stable and randomly assigned the roles- behaviour due to social pressure not personality
Contol increases study's internal validity- more reliable for drawing conclusions
26
State the 3 limitations of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)
- Lack of realism
- Major ethical issues
- Contradicted by other research
27
How were ethics a limitation of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)? (2)
- student wanted leave and spoke to Zimbardo who didn't make it clear he was allowed to leave
- Zimbardo failed to protect ppt from harm because he conformed to his role superintendent too much
28
How is a lack of realsim a limitation of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)? How can these points be contradicted?
- One guard beased his role off a character off a film
- Prisoners rioted- thought real prisoners did
(con. ) - data showed 90% of conversations were about prison life- simulation seemed real to them- increasing study's internal validity
29
How has the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) been contradicted by subsequent research? (limitation)
- SPE was repliated with diff surroundings- prisoners took control
- supports SIT theory- guards in replication failed to develop social identity as a group but prisoners did and rebelled to social roles
- brutality of the guards in SPE due to shared social identity rather than conformity to roles?
30
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
| Aim:
Aim: To what extent are people obedient to authority figures
31
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
| Procedure: (9 steps)
Procedure:
1. Recruited 40 male participants aged between 20-50 years in jobs ranging from unskilled to professional
2. Participants thought they were taking part in a memory study and were paid $4.50 for showing up
3. Participants drew lots for their role, confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the ‘learner’, participant was always the teacher and another confederate was the ‘experimenter’ and wore a lab coat.
5. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time.
6. Learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes.
7. Teacher had to give the learner an increasingly severe electric ‘shock’ each time they made a mistake – teachers not told that the shocks were all fake and learner was an actor.
8. Shocks started at 15 volts and went as high as 450 volts (labelled ‘danger-severe shock’). At 300v learner would pound on the wall, after 315v learner would pond on wall again and give no further response.
9. Teacher used a sequence of four standard prods if the teacher (pp) felt unsure about continuing (e.g ‘you have no other choice you must go on’)
32
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
| Findings: (4)
```
Findings:
• No pp stopped below 300v
• Five stopped at 300v
• 65% continued to 450v
• Pp showed signs of tension (sweating, trembling, 3 of them had seizures)
```
33
Milgram (1963) Original Obedience Study
| Conclusions:
Conclusions: It was predicted that no more than 3% would continue to 450v- findings were unexpected. People are much more obedient to authority figures than they thought
34
3 Situational Variables that explain obedience
- Uniform
- Proximity
- Location
35
How did Milgram test proximity in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (3)
- 'Proximity variation' teacher and learner in same room- dropped from 65% to 40%
- 'Touch proximity variation' teacher had to force the learner's hand onto shock plate- dropped to 30%
- 'Remote-instruction' experimenter gave instructions via telephone - dropped to 20.5%
36
How did Milgram test location in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (1)
- Exp. carried out in run-down buliding rather than Yale university- experimenter had less authority
- dropped to 47.5%
37
How did Milgram test uniform in his variations? How did the obedience rate change? (1)
- Experiment was called away due to 'phone call' and his position was taken over by 'ordinary member of the public' (confederate) in normal clothes (not lab coat like experimenter)
- dropped to 20%
38
What are the two social-pyschological explantaions for obedience?
- the agentic state
| - legitimacy of authority
39
What's the agentic state? (explanation for obedience)
- when a person acts as an 'agent' for an authority figure
- feels no personal responsibility or guilt for their actions
- opposite to an autonomous state
40
What is the 'agentic shift'?
The mental shift from an autonomous state (free) to an agetic shift
41
How does 'legitimacy of authority' explain obedience?
Legitimacy of authority suggests we are more likely to obey people who we think have power over us. This power is justified by social hierarchy e.g Hitler, bouncers, police
42
Who established the 'authoritarian personality' explanation? Why did they want to conduct this research?
Adorno et al.
| Wanted to understand Holocaust- wanted to believe that unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder
43
Three key aspects to authoritarian personality:
- Exaggerated respect and submissiveness to authority
- Express contempt to ppl of inferior social status
- Conventional attitudes towards race and gender
44
Where does the authoritarian personality stem from?
Harsh parenting in childhood:
- strict discipline
- expectations of absolute loyalty
- impossibly high standards- criticism if not met
- conditional love depending on how child behaves
45
How does harsh parenting lead to authoritarian personalities 'scapegoating'?
Harsh parenting creates resentment and hostility in the child, can't express these feelings towards parents due to unconditional loyalty so feelings are displaced onto social inferiors/weaker- scapegoating
46
How did Adorno investigate the authoritarian personality?
- F-scale
- Investigagated unconsciuos attitudes of other racial groups of more of than 2000 middle-class white Americans
- Questions
47
What were Adorno's finsings and conclusions from the F-scale?
- Authoritarians (high scorers on F-scale) identified with 'strong' people and contemptous of 'weak'
- Conscious of own and other social status- showed respect for those of higher status
- Distinctive stereotypes of other groups
- Fixed ways of thinking
48
What are the 2 explanations for resistance to social influence? (with explanation)
- Social support- Asch found that unanimity promotes resistance (presence of dissenter reduced conformity)
Introduces other possible answer/ideas and increases personal confidence
- Locus of control- Internality (I have control) Externality (controlled by other factors) - high internals are more likely to resist oppression and be goal orientated
49
State 2 strengths of the resistance to social influence theory:
- Research: proven my Asch- dissenter reduced conformity
- Research links LOC to resistance to obedience: Milgram variation conducted- 37% of internals didn't continue to highest shock, only 27% of external didn't
50
State a limitation of the resistance to social influence theory:
- Role of LOC in resistance may be exaggerated- Rotter found LOC has little influence in familiar situations - means LOC is only explains narrow range of 'new' situations
51
Minority influence leads to...
...internalisation
52
In order for a minority influence to be successful, what three things do they need to ensure/
- Consistency (Synchronic and Diachronic)
- Commitment (Augmentation principle)
- Flexibility
53
Moscovici, The green-blue slides (resistance to social influence)
Procedure: (2)
Procedure:
1. 6 people viewed a set of blue-green colored slides, varying in intensity- then said they were blue or green
2. Study had three conditions:
- Conf. always said green
- Conf. inconsistent about the colour of the slides
- Control group- no conf
54
Moscovici, The green-blue slides (resistance to social influence)
Findings: (3 conditions- 3 stats)
Findings:
- Consistent minority condition: 32% gave the wrong answer on at least one trial
- Inconsistent minority: agreement fell to 1.25%
- Control: ppt said wrong answer 0.25% of the time
55
Sequence of social change via minority: (5)
- Attention to issue
- Cognitive conflict between beliefs
- Consistency
- Augmentation principle (suffering)
- Snowball effect
56
Examples of social changes via minority influence
Civil rights, gay marriage, women's rights
57
Social Influence via majority links to what two things?
- Conformity
| - NSI
58
A small group of environmentally-aware sixth form students are campaigning for their school to become ‘paper-free’ for the next six months. Recently, they had a meeting with a group of teachers who represent the teaching staff. The teachers told the students that the school could become ‘paper-free’ if the group of students could convince the rest of the student body it was a good idea.
Use your knowledge of conformity and minority influence to explain the factors that will determine how successful the small group of students will be (7m)
- Factors affecting minority influence: the student body are more likely to be convinced if the group of students are consistent, committed and show flexibility in their views.
• Credit examples of how the students might demonstrate this.
• Credit application of explanations of minority influence: e.g. social cryptoamnesia; the snowball effect; social impact theory.
• Application of variables affecting conformity, including group size (the campaigning
group is ‘small’, the student body is the majority); unanimity (there may be other students who agree with the small group); etc.
• Credit application of explanations of conformity: e.g. explanations of how views may change through informational social influence/internalisation.
59
Marcus wants to persuade his group of friends to go travelling in the summer, but the rest of the group would like to go on a beach holiday.
Briefly suggest how Marcus might persuade his friends to go travelling using your knowledge of minority influence [4 marks]
Marcus would need to be stable in his view (consistent), that going ‘travelling in the summer’ is better than going on a beach holiday and continually remind his friends of this to demonstrate his consistency.
Marcus should be prepared to compromise (flexible) for example, he might say that if his friends go travelling, they could also visit a beach to demonstrate his willingness to compromise.
Marcus needs to remain dedicated to his point of view (committed) and show that he is willing to make a sacrifice to go travelling, rather than going on a beach holiday. For example, he might offer to do all of the planning and book the holiday for his friends, to demonstrate his commitment.
60
Garzi and Terry - PND research
Grazioli and Terry (2000) predicted that cognitive vulnerability (defined as dysfunctional attitudes and internal causal attributions) and high postpartum stress would predict high levels of PND symptoms and
emotional distress. They compared Beck’s cognitive model of depression as predictive models for postnatal depression.
61
What happened in Bickman's research?
Bickman investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment. Bickman used male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’.
On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% - These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power.
62
Explain how social influence leads to social change (6 steps)
1. Social influence leads to social change when the minority becomes a majority -> persuade people through ISI (desire to be right)
2. consistent, flexible and showing commitment. To show commitment (sacrifices e.g giving up time to protest)
3. people will start to join the minority as they believe their message is right
4. minority gets bigger + gain momentum.
5. People start to agree NSI (desire to be liked) - momentum increase, snowball effect
6. Message becomes majority view - laws may change meaning message is irresistable
63
In the UK, views on homosexuality have changed significantly in recent times. Thirty years ago, almost two-thirds of the British public opposed same-sex relationships because they were ‘morally wrong’. These days, homosexuality is accepted and the majority of British people support recent changes to the laws on gay marriage and adoption.
Explain how social influence leads to social change
* factors affecting minority influence including consistency, commitment and flexibility
* social change occurs when minority view, eg Gay Rights campaigners, challenges majority view and is eventually accepted as the majority
* theory related to conformity such as informational social influence and / or internalisation
* influence of obedience, eg changes to the laws making equal rights more of a social norm
64
Outline and discuss how consistency and commitment might contribute to minority influence. [8 marks]
AO1 = 4 and AO3 = 4
Possible content:
• consistency is repeating the same message, challenging the beliefs held by the majority. Consistency may be within the members of the group or over time. This draws attention to the minority view
• commitment is shown when members of the minority demonstrate their dedication to their belief perhaps by making sacrifices. This shows that the minority is not acting out of self-interest
• over time, consistency and/or commitment gives the members of the majority an opportunity to listen to the minority view and adopt it as their own.
Possible discussion points:
• discussion of effectiveness of consistency and commitment e.g. internalisation, drawing attention, snowball.
• use of research such as that by Moscovici to support the role of consistency in minority influence
• discussion of the link between commitment and the augmentation principle
• discussion of the link between commitment (tipping point) and the snowball effect
• discussion that suggests other factors also play a role in minority influence, not just consistency and commitment
