social influence content Flashcards

Question

what are the 3 variables affecting obedience?

Answer 1

- location - proximity - uniform

Answer 2

- **Milgram** (65% with legitimate uniform) **Bickman:**confederate asked public to pick up litter dressed as a: - guard = 82% (legitimate uniform) - milkman = 64%; (non-legitimate uniform) - casual = 36%; (no uniform)

Answer 3

Milgram = 65% in prestigious location = Yale University Rundown office = 47.5% non-prestigious location

Answer 4

Proximity of Teacher to Learner : 40% Touch proximity - (teacher hold learners' hand to shock pad): 30% Proximity Experimenter present (Milgram) = 65% v Experimenter Absent: 21%

Answer 5

**_uniform_** - **_Ev_**- Bickman - litter Guard (82%), casual (36%) milkman (64%) - **_Ex_** - uniform increased obedience. Guard uniform perceived as more legitimate in park setting - creates an agentic shift quicker due to perceived legitimacy - easier for them to obey. - **_L_** - but lack of MR. Milkman not usually in parks giving instructions on litter, hence realise fake field exp. demand characteristics, not uniform creating obedience. **_location_** **_Ev_**- Milgram Yale (65%) Vs rundown office (47.5%) - **_Ex_** - more prestigious - more obedience. More perceived legitimacy at Yale, more likely to agentically shift as more legitimacy to authority of that location. - **_L_**- higher reputation of Yale - pps more likely to think shocks fake. Rundown office, more likely to think real, so less likely to obey. not really measuring obedience, but demand characteristics. **_proximity_** -**_E_**- Touch proximity 30% Experimenter Absent: 21% -**_Ex_**- obedience increases in close proximity to authority figure - easier to agentically shift responsibility onto experimenter. Obedience increases when less proximity to learner and pp don’t have to see harm done - if do, harder to stay in agentic state - so pps disobey more as more autonomous, taking personal responsibility for harm caused. -**_L_**- RLA - Milgram’s research - how Nazis could gas jews (in close proximity to superior officers giving the orders- so agentically shift responsibility to them) -**_L_** - Socially sensitive. Is this research helpful in reducing mistreatment of others or is it used to increase wartime obedience within the army of any country?

Answer 6

agentic state legitimacy of authority authoritarian personality

Answer 7

Where a person behaves according to their own principles and feels responsible for their actions.

Answer 8

An individual acts as an agent for someone else. They assume the person giving orders is taking responsibility

Answer 9

When confronted with an authority figure, there is an agentic shift. A shift from an autonomous to an agentic state due to the authority figure’s position in a social hierarchy

Answer 10

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling.

Answer 11

- We accept that the individual rightly has authority. - We give up some of our independence to hand over control of our behaviour to those we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. - We need legitimate authority figures to maintain social order.

Answer 12

**_Research support Milgram’s claims on agentic state_** -**_E_** - film of Milgram’s study shown to students. blamed ‘experimenter’ due to legitimate authority. -**_Ex_** - People recognise others obey legitimate authority and shift the responsibility onto them for the orders given (agentic shift), lessening the moral responsibility that they hold for theirs or other actions. -**_L_** - report who they think is responsible, not what they think internally. Other cultures may not hold the authority figure responsible and may be an effect of America culture. **_However, legitimacy of authority does explain cultural differences in obedience_** -**_E_** - Milgram’s study replicated. Aus - 16% Germ - 85% -**_Ev_** - cultural perception of legitimacy of authority = diff. Australia is far less concerned about hierarchy of authority than Germany, which explains why there as less obedience to someone in a ‘grey lab coat’. -**_L_** - 15% of people disobeyed. (disposition, e.g. not AP) **_Milgram’s assumption on agentic state is too rigid_** -**_E_**- German doctors at Auschwitz. gradually shifted from ordinary medical professionals concerned about welfare of their patients, into doctors that carried out inhumane experiments on helpless prisoners. -**_Ex_**- agentic shift = gradual, people are not either in an agentic or autonomous state. may be nothing to do with the ‘agent’ or authority but more to do with becoming complicit in an ‘evil’ act and justifying the internal reasons. -**_L_**- calls into Q whether obedience is purely situational as Milgram supposed, but is more about the internal disposition of someone, e.g., authoritarian personality. Not all doctors went evil.

Answer 13

Adorno’s **method**: 2000 US middle class males from the army completed the F-scale (assessed authoritarian personality (AP) - Rigid black & white thinking: Agree with traditional beliefs about right and wrong; Resistance to alternative views or ideas. - Respect for authority: aggression justified toward those who do not think conventionally, or who are different; agree in strong leadership, more likely to obey orders because of their exaggerated respect for authority. - A negative view of people in general: E.g., believing all people lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity. - Adorno’s **findings:** positive correlation between AP, prejudice and obedience.

Answer 14

harsh parenting: E.g., extremely strict discipline, an expectation of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards and severe criticism of perceived failings. These experiences create resentment and hostility in the child

Answer 15

**_Research to support individual disposition affects obedience_** -**_E_**- Adorno, F-scale Found strong positive correlation between AP, obedience and prejudice. -**_Ex_**- disposition not situation. only 65% - 450V, not 100% due to not having AP all pp’s had same env + prompts. -**_L_**- 100% - 300V. situation **_criticism- methodological problems with the F- scale measure of AP_** -**_E_**- Self-report &all F-scale items same direction. -**_Ev_**- maybe measuring acquiescence rather than AP, as can get high score by just ticking agree everytime. -**_L_**- situational - milgram vid students watched, authority figure blamed. **_Dispositional theory not accurate on the cause of AP_** -**_E_**- Research found pp’s who scored high on F-scale had a good relationship with parents. -**_Ex_**- So, harsh, strict parenting is incorrect. Also, based on correlational data, so no cause & effect. Reason for assumption on harsh parenting is based on US army, taught to obey and more likely to come from strict backgrounds. -**_L_**- but, AP has positive implications for personal accountability; e.g., Nuremberg trials can prosecute each person that took part, otherwise if situational then no-one is at fault for atrocities like genocide.

Answer 16

social support (presence of allies) locus of control (internal vs external LOC)

Answer 17

Reduces group pressure to conform – breaks compliance. Presence of ally = decrease in conformity by 70%. Asch variation (confederate that stated correct answer = 5% conformity)

Answer 18

less pressure to obey due to presence of ally = decrease in obedience (from 65% - 10%). 2 peer rebels study (2 confederates & 1 pp) shared the task of teaching learner. •Teacher 1 = read list of words •Teacher 2 = told learner if answer was correct •Teacher 3 (pp) = administered shocks •Result = 10% - 450v.

Answer 19

**_strength - research support for social support_** - **_Ev_** - Asch variation - psychologists found when an ally (confederate) gave right answer first, before others, the real pp was more likely to resist conformity (5% conformity) -**_Ex_** - presence of just 1 ally is enough to break conformity and stop NSI. it breaks group pressure to comply due to lack of unanimity. The pp’s have confidence to resist conformity -**_L_** - does not work if the ally is just before the pp when answering. This is because a ‘group norm’ has already been created, so ally has less effect in reducing group pressure to resist conformity. **_research lacks EV & MR_** -**_Ev_** - measuring line length. T no consequences to a wrong answer. -**_Ex_** - Too simplistic – Real life situations have serious consequences - may resist conformity e.g., whether or not to kill, without an ally. May be more the person’s personality that creates resistance than social support (internal LOC). -**_L_** - But, RL evidence – individuals resisted conform to binge drinking if 1-2 friends also resisted. so social support increased resistance IRL.

Answer 20

- What happens is largely a consequence of their own behaviour so are MORE LIKELY to resist social influence. A belief that one can control much of one’s life and succeed in difficult or stressful situations. - Are active seekers of information that is useful to them so are less likely to rely on the opinions of others. - Tend to be more achievement orientated.

Answer 21

- What happens is largely a consequence of external reasons so are LESS LIKELY to resist social influence. - Luck and fate are seen as important factors. - Face stressful situations with a more passive attitude.

Answer 22

**_strength - strong positive correlation between LOC and resistance to social influence_** -**_E_**-meta-analysis of studies used Rotter’s LOC Internal-External (I-E) scale. found a positive correlation, the higher the score (more internal LOC) the more resistant to social influence. -**_Ex_**-More likely to resist = believe they have control, independent, don’t rely on the opinions of others; whereas external more likely to agentically shift, place responsibility onto the agent or take on opinions of the group (conformity). -**_L_**- correlational (no cause & effect). Could be other extraneous variables, e.g., upbringing and self-esteem that could contribute to resistance. results are all based on self-report = social desirability. **_research support with high EV_** -**_E_**- Compared 406 non-Jewish people who protected Jews to 126 people who did not. People who help protect Jews had an internal LOC. -**_Ev_**- The ppl who help protect the Jews from Nazi’s had high ILOC, believed they were responsible for saving Jews. Whereas ELOC did not help as they felt what happened to the Jews was not as a result of them helping or not, but external reasons e.g., Nazi’s, therefore more likely to resist obedience. -**_L_**- other variables for resistance, e.g., social support, (there were allies that also resisted, making them more likely to resist) not everyone resists. This may be because they have an AP. Therefore, LOC is not the sole answer

Answer 23

consistency commitment flexibility

Answer 24

Synchronic consistency – people in minority all share same view Diachronic consistency – Holding same view for long time.

Answer 25

Augmentation principle, increase of interest from Majority group. Minority takes some risk to show commitment.

Answer 26

Being able to compromise some demands to show they are willing to be lenient in order to get what they want, making them more likely to influence others.

Answer 27

**_Criticism: Social change is gradual_** - **_Ev_** - Suffragette movement took 7yrs to change women’s rights to vote. another 10 years to remove age restriction to vote at 30yrs old (putting men and women on equal footing). - **_Ex_** - Harder to create permanence than assumed. resistance from the majority, easier to go with ‘status quo’ than change. - **_L_** - supports snowball effect being gradual thus creating social-cryptoamnesia. Therefore, not criticism of theory, but support of importance of diachronic consistency. **_Criticism: Social Change is less likely if the minority group is considered ‘deviant’_** - **_Ev_** - E.g., terrorists (ISIS), trying to create state change in Syria e.g., through augmentation effect such as suicide bombing. - **_Ex_** - deviant group creating harm to others and themselves to create social change. Minority influence is slower, people unlikely to admit they agree with a murdering terrorist organisation. - **_L_** - situations are extreme and highly anti-societal. many occasions IRL when positive social change has occurred. **_Support: Social norm interventions have had positive results in creating social change_** - **_Ev_** - Montana (USA) – drink driving. After correcting misconceptions about the no of people that drink drive, drink-driving reduced by 14%. It has also worked with teenage pregnancy and smoking. - **_Ex_** - drawing attention and creating cognitive dissonance in the general public, e.g., drink driving is not the ‘social norm’ people in Montana assumed - creates a way for social change. The fact the campaign worked proves importance of cognitive dissonance. - **_L_** -but, social norms intervention can have a ‘boomerang’ effect. People who already have desirable behaviour can be negatively influenced (as may perceive behaviour as the ‘norm’. E.g., heavy drinkers drink less (as 14% lower than expected), but light drinkers drink more (as 14% is higher than expected). Therefore, campaign on social change need to be careful to get a balance between challenging and creating norms, to not normalise a negative behaviour.

Answer 28

_sample:_ 32 groups of 6 US women. _Procedure:_ - Each group 4 pps (majority) + 2 confederates (minority). - Told study is about colour perception, shown 36 slides, asked to state the colour on the slide. Study 1: 3 conditions 1. No pressure to conform 2. Inconsistent 24/36 slides “green” 3. Consistent 36/36 “green” Results: – Control: 0.25% answered green – Inconsistent: 1.25% conformed – Consistent: 8.42% conformed Study 2: write answers down instead of saying aloud Results: just as likely to conform as study 1 _Conclusion:_ – The minority (confederates) changed the majorities views to say ‘green’ when they were in fact ‘blue’ when the message was consistent. – Study 2 shows that minority conformity is internalisation (as they conform that same even when the group do not know views).

Answer 29

- Drawing Attention to Issue - Cognitive dissonance (conflict) – deeper thinking - Consistency of message - The augmentation principle – minority take risks to further the cause (commitment) - The snowball effect – small group converts others, over time becomes majority view - Social crypto amnesia – loss of memory of the event leading to the change.

Answer 30

**_Support that consistency is important for Minority Influence_** - **_Ev_** - 3 groups: No pressure to conform (0.25%) Inconsistent 24/36 slides “green” (1.25%) Consistent 36/36 “green” (8.42%) - **_Ex_** - the more consistent the message the higher the conformity to the minority. - **_L_** - study is gynocentric-only studied women and generalised to all genders. small % conformed . Hence not influenced by the consistency of the minority messages. lacks EV (based on blue/green slides) Not an important message with consequences/semantics. higher or lower minority conformity if message was important to the group? **_Criticism: Moscovici did not consider difference between in & out-groups_** - **_Ev_** - 68 14yr old UK students gave attitudes for ‘loan for pupils’ before & after reading some text supporting a minority view. Said to be: view from own school (ingroup) v school they did not like (outgroup). Responses were either: public or private. Results: public = minority ingroup influence greater than outgroup. In private, outgroup matched ingroup minority conformity. - **_Ex_** - Suggests that whether you identify with the group (ingroup) or don’t (outgroups) affects the influence that a minority has. not considered by Moscovici. assumed consistency of message = most important factor and ignored role of identification with minority group. - **_L_** - But, has a culture bias (UK only) & sample biased (only 1 school), and only generalisable to 14yr old students. may be more influenced by minorities than adults and less affected by ingroup/outgroups (through identification). **_Criticism: not only consistency but flexibility in minority influence_** - **_Ev_** - Mock jury – 3 pps and 1 confederate. Decide amount of compensation for ski jet accident. When confederate did not change compensation to low amount, neither did the majority, when confederate changed compensation slightly (flexible) so did majority. - **_Ex_** - flexibility is important for minority influence. - **_L_** - same lack of EV as all studies mentioned. All studies measure immediate minority influence (e.g., 8.42% could be higher if over a longer time period). E.g., suffragettes (happened over years rather than minutes) = snowball effect

social influence content Flashcards

(54 cards)