Social influence evaluations Flashcards
(11 cards)
Evaluations of conformity A03
Why do people conform?
P- researchers support NSI
Ev- Asch 75% spoken (afraid of disapproval) 12.5% wrote down
Ex- Public not private (compliance NSI)
L- Not situational as if it was NSI in Asch compliance would have been 100% but 25% never conformed. Futhermore 0% rather than 12.5% who wrote down would conform. Therefore disposition= LOC
P- More ISI than NSI
Ev- Lucas et al
Ex- Correct answer is important so conformed to be right, private views wrony
L- lack of mundane realism in task= generalisability to Nazi/Putin behaviour(a study compared
Russians to USA and found Russians had a more external LOC than USA) Hence compliance may not be situational but disposition baser on cultural differences.
P- Individual differences in conformity (ISI)
Ev- Perrin and Spencer conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found little conformity because they felt more confident measuring lines than original sample
Ex- Expertise and self effficacy- trusted own judgement so didn’t conform
L- We need to educate people to reduce ISI. For example the more knowledgeable Russians become of Ukraine the less likely they respond to ISI propaganda. However, not all ISI is negative as we can use thr expertise of those around us to avoid mistakes
Variables that effect conformity Asch (A03)
P- Highly scientific lab experiment
Ev- same number of confederates, same lines, standardised procedure that can be easily repeated for same results
Ex- Good control as only the confederate giving wrong answer changed. Hence, had to be cause of conformity
P- low ecological validity and mundane realism
Ev- strange room and no real consequences of giving wrong answer
Ex- This is not comparable to explain behaviour with consequences such as Nazi Germany. If real consequences then no conformity
P- Asch assumed conformity was entirely situational
Ev- 25% never conformed
Ex- Dispositional- internal LOC makes less likely to follow group and expertise makes less likely to conform as confidence in ability
L- conformity is both situational and dispositional
Conformity to social roles key study- Zimbardo (A03)
P- Methodological issue with Zimbardos research
Ev- Lack of ecological validity= fake cells, guards sunglasses, unrealistic chain around ankle
Ex- Unlike real prison, wooden cells not metal and chain/ sunglasses not used. Hence demand characteristics not conformity to social roles e.g. exaggerated acting
L- However prisoners didn’t know they were being arrested at home so felt embarrassed infront of neighbours like a real setting
L- Futhermore, they were depressed and anxious so was not likely demand characteristics. One pps tried to withdraw by acting for parole showing how immersed they were. Hence ecological validity.
P- Ethical issues
Ev- Lack of right to withdraw, lack of informed consent, little protection from harm
Ex- Research should never have been conducted. Zimbardo did not know the outcome or affects on pps. Prison simulation took away pps right to withdraw. Zimbardo was over involved e.g. superintendent. Welfare issues.
L- However, Zimbardo aquired approval from office for naval research. Futhermore did thorough debrief of pps. Therefore ehical issues are outweighed by benefits to society.
P- Real life beneficial applications
Ev- Reduces likelihood of deindividuation and dehumanisation of prisoners. Improved treatment of prisoners and reduced riots.
L- However not prevented all cases of conformity to social roles e.g. Abu Ghraib prison locked up unconvicted terrorists during Iraq war. Guards referred to prisoners by ID no and wore shades to cover their eyes. Acts of degradation e.g. prisoner hooded and dressed in a black smock, was forced to stand on a box with wires clipped to his fingers and told he’d be electrocuted if he moved—causing intense psychological trauma despite the wires being inactive.
Key study Milgram A03
P- strength, high control and causation
Ev- Can be certain its presence of authority figure causing obedience as all pps in same situation. Hence situation is main contributing factor
L- However, could be argued pps responses were demand characteristics. Orne and holland felt pps were not fooled by experimenter and knew shocks were fake. However, it may have still been doubted hence stilll a real life behavioural response.
L- This is backed up by an experiment that showed gender differences in obedience: 100% of women shocked puppies to the maximum 450 volts, despite their distress, while only 54% of men did. This suggests obedience may involve dispositional factors, not just situational ones. However, cultural context matters—while no gender differences were found in the U.S., in Australia only 16% of women obeyed compared to 40% of men.
P- criticism, ethical issues
Ev- There was issues with harm to pps (seizures), deception (learner and fake shocks), lack of right to withdraw(coercion through experimenter prompts), not all participants were fully debriefed e.g. in follow-up told shocks were fake
Ex-This is an issue as it could damage psychology’s reputation, leading to loss of trust and reduced participation in research. Milgram should have fully debriefed participants and ensured they left in the same state. Since he didn’t, the study arguably should not have been conducted.
L-Milgram aimed to show that not everyone would harm others in the same situation, and his surprising findings highlighted the impact of the situation on behavior. Without this research, we wouldn’t understand how situations, like in Nazi Germany, can lead to the genocide of Jews.
Situational variables affecting obedience (A03)
P- research support for uniform affects obedience
Ev- Bickman %
Ex- Uniform=increased obedience Guard uniform perceived as more legitimacy in park setting than the milkman; creates an agentic shift more quickly in guard condition
L- However, there is a lack of mundane realism as milkman not usuaim parks giving instructions on littler hence they realise the field experiments fake. Therefore behaviour is more demand characteristics
P- research support for location
Ev- Milgram Yale vs rundown office
Ex- More prestige= more obedience. More perceived legitimacy at Yale, more likely to agentically shift because of higher status
L- However, because of high reputation of Yale pps thought shocks wouldn’t be real but fake in comparison to rundown office. Therefore, measuring demand characteristics
P- proximity
Ev- Experimenter absent and proximity to learner
Ex- Obedience increases when closer proximity to legitimate authority- easier to agentically shift responsibility to experimenter
Obedience increases= less proximity to learner as pp doesnt see harm done
L- However real life implications e.g. WW2 (Nazis could gas Jews not in close proximity to superior)
Social pyschology factors- agentic state & legitimacy of authority A03
P- research support milgrims claims on agentic state
Ev- a film of milgrams study shown to students. They blamed the experimenter due to legitimate and expert 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- Problem= people 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 American culture
P- Milgram’s assumption on agentic state is too rigid
Ev- Studied German doctors at Auschwitz. They gradually shifted from ordinary medical professionals concerned about the welfare of their patients, into doctors thats carried out inhumane experiments on helpless prisoners
Ex- Shows agentic shift is gradual, people are not either in an agentic or autonomous state. Infact, it 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- Hence this calls into question whether obedience is purely situational as milgrim supposed, but is more about the nternal disposition of someone, which makes it easier to obey others e.g. authoritarian personality
P- However, legitimacy of authority does explain cultural differences in obedience
Ev- When milgrims study was replicate in Australia only 16% went to 450 v compared to Germanys 85%
Ex- This shows not all cultures see authority as equally legitimate. Australia is far less concerned about hierarchy of authority so are less obedient to someone in a grey lab coat
L- Therefore there are environmental factors not just situational e.g. attitudes. However, this ignores fact that even in Germany 15% disobeyed so there must be a distortion factor
Dispositional explanations for obedience A03
P- research to support individual disposition affects obedience
Ev- Adorno F scale, 2000 white middle class male Americans in army. Found strong positive correlation for higher score on f scale= more authoritarian (strict parenting)
Ex- proves disposition increses obedience not situation. Milgram only had 65% got to 450 v, 35% did not have authoritarian personality, all pps had same env + prompts
L- However 100% did go to 300v
P- One criticism is that there are methodological problems with the f scale measure of AP
Ev- Self report and all f scale items same direction
Ex- Adorno may just be measuring submission rather than AP as can get high score just ticking down all one sife of Likert scale
L- However may be overestimating part personality plays in obedience e.g. its unlikely all 65% of milgrims pp that disobeyed had AP. Futhermore research where students watched film of milgram all blamed experimenter so situational
P- Dispositional theory not accurate on the cause of AP
Ev- Research found pps who scored high on f scale had good relationship with parents
Ex- Therefore strict parenting and correlation are incorrect
L- However AP has positive implications for personal accountability e.g. Nuremberg trials can prosecute each person that took part otherwise if situational no one is at faul for atrocities like genocide
Explanations of resistance to social influence: social support A03
P- One strength is research support for social support
Ev- Psychologists found when an ally (confederate) gave the right answer before others the real pp was more likely to resist conformity
Ex- Therefore, thr presence of just 1 dissenter is enough to break conformity and stop NSI. The reason is breaks group pressure to comply due to lack of unanimity. The pp’s have confidence to resist conformity
L- However, this does not work if the ally is just before the pp when answering. This is because a ‘group norm’ has already been created so the dissenter has less effece in reducing group pressure to resist conformity
P- However, the research lacks ecological validity & mundane realism
Ev- This is measuring line length. There are no consequences to a wrong answer
Ex- Too simplistic- it does not explain how to get first dissenter so not a practical explanation. Real lifr situations have serious consequences so people less likely to resits conformity e.g. whether or not to kil without an ally in real situations such as war. May be persons personality that creates resistance ( internal LOC) rather than social support
L- However, there is real life evidence that individuals resisted conformity to binge drinks if 1-2 friends also resisted. Therefore it does apply to real world even with serious consequences e.g. Gestapo threatened to open fire on women protesting- dissenting peers gave them courage to continue & 2000 jews were set free
Explanations of resistance to social influence: Locus of control A03
P- One strength is the strong positive correlation between LOC and resistance to social influence
Ev- A meta- analysis of studies used Rotter’s LOC (Internal- external scale). The meta analysis found the higher the score (more internal LOC) the more resistant to social influence.
Ex- More likely to resist when they believe they have control as they dont have to rely on opinions of others. Whereas external more likely to agentically shift responsibility onto agentic or take om opinions of group
L- However its correlation (no cause and effect). Could be other extraneous variables e.g. upbringing and self esteem
P- On the other hand there is research support with high ecological validity
Ev- Compared 406 non Jews who protected and saved Jews to 126 people who did not. People who helped protect jews had an internal LOC.
Ex- Resistance (LOC) to social influence in real life setting. People who helped protect jews from nazis had high LOC because believed they were responsible. Whereas ELOC did not help as they believed what happened to jews was not a result of them not helping but external reasons e.g. Nazis. Therefore high LOC more likely to resist obedience
L- However other variables for resistance e.g. social support like allies who madr restistance more likely or those who didn’t may have AP. Therefore LOC is not sole answer
Minority influence Moscovici A03
P- support that consistency is important for minority influence
Ev- Moscovici findings
Ex- showed consistency of minority message has greater impact than inconsistency therefore more conformity
L- However the study is gynocentric. The findings from those women means that 68% still conformed to majority hence not influenced by consistency. The study also lacks ecological validity as there was no serious consequences and we cld not predict if that would make minority influence higher or lower.
P- criticism Moscovici did not consider difference between in and outgroups
Ev- 68, 14 yr old UK students gave attitudes for “loan for pupils’ before and after reading some text supporting a minority view
There was view from own school (ingroup) vs view from school they did not like (outgroup)
Results- minority ingroup influence greater than outgroup
Ex- suggests whether you identify with group or dont affects influence minority has. This was not considered by moscovici as he assumed consistency was most important so ignored role of identification
L- However this has culture and sample bias and only generalisable to 14 yr old students.
P- Criticism of moscovici, not only consistency but flexibility in minority influence
Ev- Mock jury- 3pps and 1 confederate. Decide amount of compensation for ski jet accident. When confederate didnt change amount to low neither did majority, when confederate changed compensation slightly (flexible) so did majority.
Ex- When minority not flexible and did not compromise majority did not change views.
When minority adapted majority were willing to change which supports idea flexibility is most important.
L- However, some studies lack ecological validity. All studies measure minority influence immediately (e.g. 8.42%) which could be higher over longer period e.g. suffragettes happened over years
Minority influence social change A03
P- criticism, social change is gradual
Ev- Suffragette took 7 yrs to change womens right to vote and another 10 to remove age restriction from 30 yrs old
Ex- Therefore minority influence and social change is harder to create permanence than assumed. There is resistance from majority as is easier for them to go with status quo than change
L- However supports snowball effect beinf gradual thus creating crypto amnesia. Therefore not criticism but supports diachronic consistency
P- criticism, social change less likely if minority considered deviant
Ev- e.g. ISIS terrorists trying to create state change in Syria through Augmentation effect such as suicide bombing
Ex- Because deviant group is creating harm to others minority influence is slower and drives social change underground e.g. people unlikely to admit they agree with a murdering terrorist organisation
L- However these situations are extreme and highly anti society. Infact there are many real life positive social changes
P- support, social norm interventions have had positive results in creating social change
Ev- Montana USA drink driving. After correcting misconception about no. of ppl that drink drive drink driving reduced to 14%. It has also worked with teen pregnancy and smoking.
Ex- This shows effectiveness of drawing attention and creating cognitive dissonance.
L- However, social norms intervention can have boomerang effect. People who already have desirable behaviour can be negatively influenced e.g. heavy drinkers drink less and light drinkers drink more.
Therefore campaigns need to ensure a balance
