Social influence (Paper 1) Flashcards

Question

# name 2 aims What were Zimbardo's Aims from SPE? | p. 20

Answer 1

1) To show how the taking of social roles would lead to excessive conformity to those roles 2) To test the dispositional hypothesis (that it is the situation that makes people act the way they do rather than their disposition) | Disposition = 'A person's inherent qualities of mind and character' ## Footnote A01

Answer 2

The guards behaviour became a threat to the prisoners' **psychological and physical health**. * study was stopped after 6 days instead if the intended 14. **Within 2 days**, the **prisoners rebelled** against their harsh treatment by the guards. (e.g ripped their uniforms, shouted + swore at the guards and retaliated with fire extinguishers.) After their rebellion was put down, the prisoners became depressed or anxious The guards highlighted the differences in social roles by enforcing the rules and punished even the smallest misdemeanour. (e.g to prove they were always watching them would do head counts even at night.) * One prisoner was released on the first day because he showed symptoms of **psychological disturbance**. * Two more were released on the fourth day. * One prisoner went on a **hunger strike**. The guards attempted to force feed him and then punished him by putting him in 'the hole' a tiny dark closet. Instead of being considered a hero **he was shunned by the other prisoners**. The guards identified increasingly more closely with their role. Their behaviour became brutal and aggressive, with some of them appearing to enjoy the power they had over the prisoners. | A01

Answer 3

Dependant variable - It's the outcome you're interested in measuring, and it “depends” on your independent variable. ## Footnote A01

Answer 4

People conformed very quickly to their roles, even volenteers who came as e.g a prison champlain found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather then a psychological lab | A01

Answer 5

Independant variable - stands alone and isint changed by the other variables you are trying to measure ## Footnote A01

Answer 6

IV: The conditions the participants were randomly assigned: prisoner or guard DV: The resulting behaviour ## Footnote A01

Answer 7

**control (positive)**- because they only selected emotionally stable personalities it can be drawn that it was the situation that drew this behaviour. **lack of realism- negative** Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued the Pps were merely play-acting rather than genuinely *conforming to a role. Based on their stereotypes* of how prisoners and guards are 'supposed' to behave. e.g, one of the guards claimed he had based his role on a brutal character from the film 'Cool Hand Luke'. **positive- High degree of internal validity.** Zimbardo gathered Quantative data showing that many Pps thought of it as a real Prison **Role of dispositional influence- (negative)** Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation, to influence behaviour. Minimising the role of personality factors. (dispositional influences). e.g * only around 1/3 behaved in a brutal manner. * Another 1/3 were keen on applying the rules fairly. * The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating privileges. *Suggests Zimbardo's conclusion- that participants were conforming to social rules- may be over stated.* The differences in the guards' fair/kind behaviours indicate that they were able to excercise right and wrong choices, despite the situational pressures to conform to a role. | A03

Answer 8

**A major ethical issue was Zimbardo's dual roles in the study.** e.g, * On one occasion a student who wanted to leave the study spoke to Zimbardo in his role as a superintendent. Conversation conducted as if he was a prisoner (not student) in a 'prison' asking to be 'released'. *Zimbardo responded to him as a superintendent worried about the running of his prison rather than as a researcher with responsibilities towards his participants.* ## Footnote A03

Answer 9

* Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam's (2006) made a partial replication of the Stanford prison experiments 'bcc prison study'. *Their findings were very different to Zimbardo's. It was the prisoners who took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience.* Researchers used 'social identity theory' to explain this outcome. They argued that the guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group, but the prisoners did; identifiying themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned role as prisoners. | EDIT ## Footnote A03

Answer 10

Obedience ## Footnote A01

Answer 11

A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not met ## Footnote A01

Answer 12

He wanted an answer to the question of why such a high proportion of the German people supported Hitler's plan to slaughter over 6 million jews in the Holocaust as well as 5 million Romani, homosexual, polled and members of other social groups during the Second World War. He wanted to know if Germans were different- were they more obedient? ## Footnote A01

Answer 13

He **recruited 40 male Pps through newspaper adverts and flyers in the post**. The ad said he was looking for participants for a study about memory. Pp's recruited were aged 20 - 50. Their jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. Offered $4.50 to take part (during early 1960's- around $85 now). They were paid the money at arrival and there was a rigged draw for their role. A confederate 'Mr Wallace' always ended up as their learner while the true participant was the 'teacher', also an experimenter (another confederate) dressed in a lab coat, played by an actor. Participants were told they could leave the study at any time. ## Footnote A01

Answer 14

The learner was strapped in a chair in another room and wired with electrodes while the teacher watched. The teacher was required to give the learner an increasingly severe electric shock each time the learner made a mistake on a learning task (the tasks involved learning word pairs). The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher with 45 volts. Thereafter the shocks were not real. The shock level started at 15 (labelled 'slight shock' on the shock machine) and rose through 30 levels to 450 volts (labelled 'danger- severe shock'). When the teacher got to 300 volts ('intense shock') the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. After the 315 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner. When the teacher turned to the experimenter for guidance, the experimenter gave a standard instruction: 'An absence of response should be a wrong answer'. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter gave a sequence of four standard 'prods', which were repeated if necessary. Prod 1: 'Please continue' or 'Please go on' Prod 2: 'The experiment requires that you go on' Prod 3: 'It is absolutely essential that you continue' Prod 4: 'You have no other choice you must go on' the experiment continued either until the subject refused to continue or until 450 volts were reached and given four times. The participants were then debriefed and met with the confederate. | edit this ## Footnote A01

Answer 15

No participants stopped below 300 volts. 12.5% (5 participants) stopped at 300 volts ('intense shock'), 13.65% continued to the highest level of 450 volts. Qualitative data collected, showed **many Pp's had signs of extreme tension**, sweating, tremble, stutter, bit their lips, groaning and dig their fingernails into their hands'. **3 even had full blown uncontrollable seizures**'. Prior to the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants' behaviour. The students estimated that no more than 3% of the participants would continue to 450 volts. This shows that the findings were not expected. All participants were debriefed, and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal. They were also sent a follow-up questionnaire; 84% reported that they had felt glad to have participated. ## Footnote A01

Answer 16

**Good external validity- positive.** Milgram's study may at first glance appear to lack external validity because it was conducted in a lab. However, the central feature of this situation was the relationship between the authority figure (the experimenter) and the participant. Milgram argued that the lap environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. other research supports this argument. For example, Howling (1966) studied nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (with 21 out of 22 nurses obeying). This suggest that the process of obedience to authority that occurred in Milgrams lab study can be generalised to other situations. So his findings do have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life. **Supporting replication- positive**. The Game of Death is a documentary about reality tv, presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram's study. The participants belied they were contestants in a pilot episode of a new game show called 'La Zone Xtrême'. They were paid to give (fake) electric shocks- when ordered by the presenter- to other participants, who were in fact actors, in front of a studio audience. In a remarkable confirmation of Milgram's results, 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram's participants- nervous laughter, nail biting and other signs of anxiety. This replication supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience to authority, and demonstrates that his findings to authority are not just a one-off chance occurrence. **Low internal validity- negative**. Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved the way they did because they didn't really believe in the set up- they guessed it wasn't real electric shocks. in which case Milgram was not testing what he intended to test, i.e. the study lacked internal validity. Gina Perry's (2013) research confirms this. She listened to tapes of Milgram's participants and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks. Milgram himself reported that 70% of his participants believed they were real meaning 30% did not believe the shocks were real. This shows us that it lacked internal validity. **Ethical issues -negative.** Milgram led participants to believe that the allocation of roles as 'teacher' and 'learner' was random, but in fact it was fixed. Perhaps the most significant deception involved the participants believing the electric shocks were real. The most significant consequence of deception is that participants do not have enough information to give their confirmed consent. Meaning they may be exposed to negative psychological consequences such as anxiety, humiliation, loss of dignity and self esteem if they are not aware of some of the aspects of the procedure when other people are. | EDIT THISSS OMLLLL ## Footnote A03

Answer 17

under certain circumstances most people will obey orders that go against their conscience. when people occupy a subordinate position in a dominance hierarchy, they become liable to lose feelings of empathy, compassion and morality, and are inclined towards blind obedience. Atrocities (WWII) may be largely explained in terms of pressures to obey a powerful authority. | edit this ## Footnote A01

Answer 18

**Social identity theory-** meaning obedience lies in group identification, Pp's may have gone along because **they believed in the science of the reserach. And when obedience fell this was because they then identified more with the victim**. Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher in 2012 studied the Pps behaviour on how they reacted when the prods were used. Out of the 4 prods, only the last prod demanded obedience (the rest were a plea to help with the science of the study) - everytime the last prod was used the Pp quit (so did not obey). ## Footnote A03

Answer 19

.Lied about the allocated roles teacher vs learner being random- when it was fixed. . Lied about the electric shocks being real - can be seen as a deception and betrayal of trust. (Diana Baumrind who was very critical of milgrams experiment saw this as a damage to the reputation of psychologists and their reserach. ## Footnote A03

Answer 20

Something happening due to the external circumstance rather then from the personalities of the people involved these do include things such as **proximity, location and uniform**. In milgrams experiment he found serveral factors that he believed influenced Pps obedience levels. Such as the 3 named. ## Footnote A01

Answer 21

Physical closeness or distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to. In Milgrams this would be the physical closeness of the teacher and victim/learner. ## Footnote A01

Answer 22

The place where an order is issued- what influences obedience is the status/prestige associated with the place ## Footnote A01

Answer 23

People in positions of authority usually have an outfit that represents this authority e.g police officers or judges - this indicates to everyone who is entitled to expect our obedience. ## Footnote A01

Answer 24

from adjoining room to being in the same room (the teacher and learner) obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. another version; the teacher has to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate if they refused to answer. Touch promimity condition dropped the obedience rate to a futher 30% Another variation the instructions were given by telephone. This reduced the time pressure and obedience dropped down to 20.5% (some also pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones then they were ordered) ## Footnote A01

Answer 25

From the original 65% at the prestigous Yale university- doing so in **a run down building droppped the obedience rate to 47.5%** ## Footnote A01

Answer 26

In the original baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat, in the other variation the experimenter inconviently had to make a call and was replaced by an 'ordinary member of the public' (played by a confederate) - wore everyday clothes rather then a lab coat. In this senario obedience dropped 20% (from the original 65%- so 45% obedience rate) | EDIT ## Footnote A01

Answer 27

Research support (positive) - A field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dressed in 3 different outfits ; suit, milkman outfit, and security guard's uniform. They would ask passbyers to complete a task e.g pick up litter or give the confederate a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likey to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard then the one in a suit. This supports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys the authority of its wearer and is a situational factors likely to produce obedience. ## Footnote A03

Answer 28

Orne and Holland critisised Milgrams original study because many of the participants had worked out the experiment was fake, especially in his variation when the experimenter is swapped for 'a member of the puplic'. This is a limitation beacause we then don't know if people acted accordingly due to knowing it was fake or due to obedience. | (But the stress many experienced may prove otherwise as milgram said) ## Footnote A03

Answer 29

His findings were replicated in other cultures which supports his study. Mirianda et al (1981) found obediebce rate over 90% for spanish students. This suggests milgrams conclusions on obedience is not limited to American males and can include other cultures as well as females. However Smith and Bond (1981) said these are western, developed countries and are not that culturally differernt from the USA. Therefore it in not applicable to say proximety, location and uniform apply to people everywhere. ## Footnote A03

Answer 30

Proximity, Location and Uniform are all factors that influence obedience, but David Mandel in 1998 critized this way of thinking, that those who did Evil behaviour could be justified as victims themselves. Saw it as offensive to people like survivours of the Holocaust. ## Footnote A03

Answer 31

He systematically altered one variable at a time e.g proximety. All the other variables were kept the same and was replicated over and over again with more then 1000 Pps in total. ## Footnote A03

Answer 32

A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure- since we do not get the blame/ can blame someone else. ## Footnote A01

Answer 33

We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy. Most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly. ## Footnote A01

Answer 34

* Opposite of agentic state. * People in this state are free to behave according to their own principles/guidelines and so feel a sense of responsible towards their own actions. | atonomous means to be independant/free ## Footnote A01

Answer 35

Agentic shift ## Footnote A01

Answer 36

The agentic shift is smth Milgram (1974) suggested occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy. Therefore people who stand below their power will switch from autonomy to agency. ## Footnote A01

Answer 37

Milgram wanted to know why many Pp's spoke as if they wanted to quit but didn't and how they had stayed in this Agentic state. The answer is blinding factors: Aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore/minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour, Reducing the 'moral strain' they are feeling. e.g in Milgram's experiment the individuals would state things such as 'he was foolish to volunteer' or denying the damage they were doing to the victims. ## Footnote A01

Answer 38

e.g Cops, teachers, Parents. Becauase we accept that they have the power to punish wrongdoers. ## Footnote A01

Answer 39

Problems arise when legitimate authority become destructivre. History has often shown ppl use power for destructive purposes (such as Hitler or Stalin) ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous. This was clearly shown through the prods used in Milgrams study, that ordered the Pp's to behave in ways that went against their conscience. ## Footnote A01

Answer 40

Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram's study to people and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace. The students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the participant. The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (the 'experimenter' was top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority) but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist). In other words they recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this explanation. ## Footnote A03

Answer 41

It does not explain why some Pp's do NOT obey. Also doesn't explain the findings of Holfing et al's study. ((Agentic shift would have predicted that the nurses would have shown levels of axienty similar to Milgrams Pp's when doctors gave them unjustifiable demands but this was not the case. Instead they gave the responsibility over to the doctor as they understood their role in a destructive process (21 out of 22 obeyed) - meaning agentic shift can only account for some situations)) | (Holfing et al's study is on page 23) ## Footnote A03

Answer 42

Its a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. For example in 1974 Kilham and Mann did an experiment in Australia and found only 16% of the Pp's went to the top voltage, On the other hand, Mantell's in 1971 found a different figure for germans- being 85%. Findings from cross-culture research increases the valadidity of this explanation. This can help explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes. e.g the US Army during the My Lai massacre. ## Footnote A03

Answer 43

Positive: cultural differences proven Positive: (2001) Blass and Schmitt has research supporting it Negative: agentic shift offers limited explanation to why some 人 don't obey. + doesn't explain then Holfing et al's study. | 2001 study- Students blamed experimenter in milgrams study ## Footnote A03

Answer 44

There is research evidence that shows the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift Mandeel 1998 described an incident involving german reserve police batallion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in a small town in poland (but they were told they could be assigned other duties instead if they prefered) so they did not have direct orders to need to do so. Therefore challenges the agentic state explanation. (since they were given a choice therefore acted autonomously/ In their own independancy) ## Footnote A03

Answer 45

Behaviour that highlights an individuals personality (their disposition) often contrasted with situational explanation (External environment playing a role in determining something) e.g Some of Milgram's Pp's disobeyed and some actively rebelled against the experiment, dispite all being sucummbed into the same situation and social pressure. ## Footnote A01

Answer 46

Adorno argues it is a type of personality which is more likey to be submissive to those with a higher status, and dismissive to those inferior to them. ## Footnote A01

Answer 47

1) Ardono et al 2) Fascism scale (used to measure authoritarian personalities) 3) Wanted to understand the anti semitism of the Halocaust ## Footnote A)1

Answer 48

investigated the cause of obediant personalities with 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconsious atttitudes towards other races. Developed several sacres including the F scale (fascism scale- used to measure authoritartian personalities) ## Footnote A01

Answer 49

Those who scored highest on the F scale and other measures identified most with 'strong people' who looked down on the weak. - conscious of their own and others status, showing excessive respect, difference and servility towards them. -Also found that authoritarian people had a cognitive style- fixed and distinct sterotypes of other groups. There was a positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice. ## Footnote A01

Answer 50

-especially obediant to authority. - extreme respect for authority and submissive to it - Feel inferior sex, gender and races are worthless- need strong leaders. - enforce traditional values - inflexiable in their outlook - uncomfortable with uncertainty (to them there are no grey areas- everything is either right or wrong) ## Footnote A01

Answer 51

During Childhood- as a result of harsh parenting e.g stirct dicipline, impossibly high standards, critism of failings and expectation of absolute loyalty. - Usually characterised on conditional love (affection for their child only depending on how he/she behaves) ## Footnote A01

Answer 52

Ardono argues that harsh parenting can build up resentment and hostility in the child- put they can't express this onto their parent in fear of relaliation. So they displace these onto people they feel are percieved weaker then them- this is the process of Scapegoating. This explains the central trait of obedience to higher authority and the dislike for people considered socially inferior. This is a psychodayamic explanation (The study of mental and emotional processes that influences behaviour) ## Footnote A01

Answer 53

1966- Milgram and Alan Elms (His asssistant) conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obediant Pp's, Who had scored highly on the F scale. they thought there might be a link between obedience and authoritarian personalities. however it is simply a correlation and so not possible to draw any conclusions (There could be a third factor involved e.g lower education) ## Footnote A03

Answer 54

Doesn't explain large scale obedience in a country. e.g pre-war germany had millions of germans who displayed obedience, racist and anti-semetic behaviour- despite the fact they must have had different personalities. It is extremly unlikely that they all possesed authoritarian personalities. Therefore there must be a more realistic, alternative explanation. (1996 Daniel Goldhagen argues that social indentity creates obedience) ## Footnote A03

Answer 55

Social identity ## Footnote A03

Answer 56

It measures an extreme form of right-winged ideologies. Christie and Jahoda (1954) said this was a politically based interpretation of authoritarian personalities. They argued that extremist left-wing people e.g Maoism also emphasies the important of complete obedience to legitimate political authority. Therefore it was a limitation because it did not take into account the whole political spectrum. ## Footnote A03

Answer 57

1) The F-scale was all worded in the same direction- meaning its possible to get a high score on authoritarianism just by ticking boxes down one side of the page. Therefore some Pp's may be 'acquiescence'/ 'yea-saying' and the scale is just measuring the tendancy to agree to everything - acquiesence bias. (It is the tendancy to agree with items on a questionaire, regardlesss of its contents- this can be for a number of reasons including: Personality: Some people are naturally more likely to agree with statements. Perceptions: Respondents may think they know what the researcher wants to hear, or they may perceive the researcher as an expert. Interviewer reactions: The way an interviewer reacts to a respondent's answer can signal what the interviewer wants to hear.) 2) Another methological problem was that Adorno and his collegues interviewed Pp's about there childhood experiences, but already knew their test scores- so knew which had authoritarian personalities. They also knew the hypothesis of the study ( This causes confirmation bias- The reserachers might have seen what they expected to see based on their hypothesis) conclusion of these methological problems: Weakens the explanatory power (Ability of a theory to make scense of the evidence) Biases in both the measurment tool (F-Scale) and researchers expectations. | hypothesis: a testable statement that predicts the outcome of a study ## Footnote A03

Answer 58

They studied many variables and found many strong correlations such as authoritarian personalities tend to be prejudice towards minority groups- however that does not mean one variable causes the other. Therefore Adorno could not claim harsh parenting style caused the development of an authoritarian personalities. ## Footnote A03

Answer 59

Political bias (negative) Methological problems (negative) Research support by Milgram and his assistant Alan Elms (positive) - However it was only a correlation, not causation (Negative) ## Footnote A03

Answer 60

Change in a person’s behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group of people ## Footnote A01

Answer 61

A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not fulfilled. ## Footnote A01

Answer 62

Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability to withstand social pressure is influenced by situational and dispositional factors (Situational factors are those that are constantly changing within one's life e.g environment, whereas dispositional factors are those that remain relatively stable over time. e.g personality) ## Footnote A01

Answer 63

The presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others to do so too. These people act as models to show that resistance to social influence is possible ## Footnote A01

Answer 64

The sense we each have about what directs events in our lives: Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them. e.g did bad on a test because they didn't revise hard enough Externals believe it is mainly a matter of external forces/ luck e.g you did bad on a test because the questions were hard or the textbook failed them. ## Footnote A01

Answer 65

Asch study of conformity → used when looking at unanimity. His variation looking at the role of an added ‘non conforming’ confederate explains the role of social support Milgram study of obedience → variation when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate (obedience dropped from 65-10%) explains the effect of a disobedient ‘model’ Allen and Levine → role of dissenting peers in resisting conformity especially in Asch type studies even when the dissenter would not be in position to provide the correct response Gamson → the value of participants being in groups (dissenting peers again) as a factor increasing resistance to obedience Holland → the role of LOC in obedience based on Milgram’s obedience testing Twenge et al → analytical data study of LOC found contradicting information to study above. Found no correlation between increased internal LOC amd resistance to obedience

Answer 66

Resisting conformity: Conformity drops when other people present do not conform. Seen in Arch’s research, the confederates who stirred away from the groups answer, whether they were right or wrong, gave participants freedom to follow their own conscience. (however Arch found that if these non-conforming Pp's start conforming again so does the naive Pp's so it is not a long lasting effect) ## Footnote A01

Answer 67

social support helps ppl resist obedience. In one of milgrams variation If another person disobeys the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% (found in one of Milgrams obedience variations) This challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey. Pp's may not follow this behaviour, but it acts as a 'model' for the Pp's to copy. It frees them to act from their own counsciousness. ## Footnote A01

Answer 68

The LOC continuum is a scale and individuals vary in their positions on it. With high internal LOC on one end and high External LOC on the other end. (with low external and low internal lying in between) ## Footnote A01

Answer 69

Internals are more likely to be able to resist pressure to conform or obey ( This makes sense as someone who blames themselves for their actions, good or bad, are more likey to base their decisions from their own believes, thus resisting social pressure) There are also more likey to be confidant, achieved orientated and have higher intelligence and less need for social approval. ## Footnote A01

Answer 70

Allen and Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter (disagreeing with or refusing to conform) In an Arch type study. Even when the dissenter (disagreeing with or refusing to conform) wore thick glasses and said he had vision difficulties (so in no position to judge the length of the lines)- conformity had decreased. -This supports the view that resistance allows them to be free from social pressure, and has little regard to the person who first resisted. ## Footnote A03

Answer 71

Gamson et al (1982) study had Pp's made to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign (higher levels of resistance then Milgrams study) 29/33 groups of Pp's rebelled. - this shows us that peer support is linked to greater resistance. | A03

Answer 72

In 1967 Charles Holland replicated Milgram's study of obedience to see whether participants were internal or externals. Internals showed more resistance with 37% not continuing to the highest shock level. However only 23% of externals did not continue. This demonstrates that externals are less resistant to authority in a study like Milgram’s. - This study increases the validity of the LOC explanation (internals and externals and how they function in society) and our ability to explain resistence.

Answer 73

Jean Twenge et al study (2004) analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over 40-year period. (1960-2002) The data showed that over time people have became more resistance to obedience yet also became more external. (If resistance was linked to internal LOC - we would have expected people to become more internal) This contradicts Holland's experiment and now suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence. ## Footnote A03

Answer 74

Rooter (1982) Points our that LOC only comes into play in novel situations. It has very little influence over our behaviour in familliar situations, where our original experiences will always be more important. - This point is often overlooked in disscusions of LOC and resistance. - It means that people who have conformed or obeyed in specific sitiations in the past are likey to do so again, even if they have high internal LOC. ## Footnote A03

Answer 75

When a small amount of people (sometimes even 1 person) pursuades other people to adopt their beliefs/attitudes/behaviour. This leads to internalisation or conversion, in which Public behaviour and private attitudes are changed. ## Footnote A01

Answer 76

Minority influence is most effective if over time everyone in the minority keep to the same beliefs - its effective because it will draw attention to the minority view. ## Footnote A01

Answer 77

Minority influence is most powerful if people are dedicated to their positions e.g making personal sacrifises. - This is effective because it shows they are not acting out of self-interest. ## Footnote A01

Answer 78

Relentless consistency can be seen as unbending and unreasonable, therefore minority influence is most effective if they show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise. ## Footnote A01

Answer 79

Conformity is from majority influences, and usually doesn't lead to internalisation. ## Footnote A01

Answer 80

Synchronic- everyone is saying the same thing (making the same point) Diachronic- Everyone is saying the same thing for some time now (they keep making the same point) (Their consistency makes you re-think your own views because if they keep making this point or re-saying this point maybe they are onto something) ## Footnote A01

Answer 81

When someone takes action despite obstacles, their beliefs are perceived as more valid. (demonstartes commitement to the cause and therefore makes people believe that if they care so much about it, I ought to consider their view- majority group members start to pay more attention to this minority who take extreme action) ## Footnote A01

Answer 82

When a minority influence has consistency, commitment, and flexability. Over time the majoirty will switch to the minority position. they have become 'converted'. The more this happenes the faster the rate of converstion- which leads to the Snowball effect. ## Footnote A01

Answer 83

. Moscovici et al's study showed consistency is more efficient for minority influence then non-consistency. . Wood et al carried out a meta-analysis (around 100) and found that minorities who were seen as consistent were the most influential. ## Footnote A03 ( A meta-analysis is a statistical process that combines the results of multiple studies to draw conclusions and answer questions)

Answer 84

. Martin et al measured Pps support to a particular message, Pps were grouped and heard their initial view agreed, one group from a minority and another from a majority. Finally exposed to a conflicting view. They found that less people were willing to change their opinions if they had heard it from a minority group - therefore this proves the depth of this process of thought. ## Footnote A03

Answer 85

They lack external validity as in most cases the political campaigns and jury decisions can be a matter of life and death Therefore studies like Arch's line judgement task lacks external validity. ## Footnote A03

Answer 86

.Moscovici's blue-green slide study. Pps were allowed to write answers down (So their responses were private rather then public) In these circumstances minority positions were greater - But they were reluctant to admit association with the minority position in fear of being considered radical/ weird / awkward, ect. ## Footnote A03

Answer 87

Individuals/groups who change eachothers attitudes/behaviours. (This includes conformity, obedience and minority influence) ## Footnote A01

Answer 88

When a whole society adopts new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things. | A01 ## Footnote e.g accepting that the sun orbits the earth, womens suffrage, gay rights and environmtental issues.

Answer 89

1) drawing attention e.g civil Rights Movement 2) Consistency 3) deeper processing 4) Augmentation principle e.g freedom riders 5) Snowball effect 6) Social cryptomnesia - People know that change has occured but don't remember the events of how it happened e.g south America changing during Civil Rights ## Footnote A01

Answer 90

Many campaigns increasingly exploit conformity processes by appeling to Normative social influence by providing information about what other people are doing- e.g littering caimpaigns 'Bin it - others do'. In other words social change is encouraged by drawing attention to what the majority are doing. ## Footnote A01

Answer 91

Zimbardo's 2007 study suggests Obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment. (Once a small instruction is obeyed it's much harder to resist a bigger one - people will drift into this new behaviour) ## Footnote A01

Answer 92

. Nolan et al investigated if social influence processes led to reduction in energy consumption in a community. Every week for a month they hung messages on front doors on san diago houses. Some messages asked them to save energy, and others included other peoples actions/ behaviours on saving energy. .The messages that included other peoples actions/behaviour found a significant decrees in energy usage. - This shows conformity can lead to Social change through the use of Normative Social influence. | A03

Answer 93

Their effects are usually delayed and indirect (Delayed because it takes time for the effects to be seen.) (Indirect because it doesn't directly change peoples beliefs or core attitudes, but Instead influences people in a more round about way - often affecting related issues rather then the central issue itself e.g a minority advocating for an environmental cause - people may not immedalty adopt the same view but may make smaller changes like recycling more - this is indirect because it does not tackle the core belief but starts by impacting related behaviours) | A03

Answer 94

It shows its effects are fragile and its role in Social influence is very limited. | A03

Answer 95

He said that the minority and majority have 2 different cognitive processes ((Minority influence causes individuals to have to think more deeply about an issue than majority influences (Which would be conformity)) | A03

Answer 96

Diane Mackie (1987), presents evidence that it may be majority influence that creates deeper thinking if you do not share their views. This is because we like to believe others share our views so when a majoirty does not we are forced to think long and hard about their reasonings. - This casts doubt on the validity of Mosovici's explanation. | A03

Answer 97

Bashir et al found many resist to social change because they do not want to be grouped into the sterotypes and minorities - associating sterotypes like environmentalistis as 'tree huggers' and feminists as 'man haters'. The researchers tip to minortites wanting to create social change was to not act in their sterotypes because this will always be off putting to the majority. | A03

Social influence (Paper 1) Flashcards

Learning this entire psychology book does not guarantee an A+ (must on top of this do a bunch of independent research) (121 cards)