Section 1: Social Influence

Question 1

What is conformity

Answer 1

It’s majority influence.
The tendency to change what we do, think and say
In response to the influence of real/imagined pressure from others

Question 2

What are the three types of conformity

Answer 2

— compliance
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
But don’t agree inside (private disagreement)
-> behaviour change is temporary
-> a specific behaviour/opinion stops as soon as group pressure stops

— internalisation
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
And we do agree internally (private agreement)
-> likely to lead to permanent behaviour change
-> attitudes are internalised, so behaviour persists even when pressure stops

— identification
Outside, we conform (public agreement)
Inside, we have no opinion (part of a group and that’s what they follow)
-> likely to be temporary behaviour change
-> when pressure stops, we leave the opinions/behaviour behind

Question 3

What are explanations for conformity

Answer 3

These are an identification of the reasons why ppl conform.

1. Informational social influence (isi)
   About abt who knows more - you or rest of group
   - often we’re unsure of what behaviours are right and wrong, as we feel we lack info wch the majority have
   - eg. You may not know answer to a question in class, but if most of class agrees to one answer, you accept as you think they’re more likely to be right
   - the reason ppl follow behaviour of rest of group(majority) is bc they want to be right
   Isi is a mental/cognitive process AND leads to internalisation

Most likely to happen in situations new to a person
Or where there is ambiguity
Or where decisions have to be made fast
Or where one group/person is regarded as expert

..

2. Normative social influence (nsi)
   About norms ; what’s normal/typical behaviour for a social group
   - norms regulate behaviour of groups/individuals, wch is why we pay attention to them
   - ppl prefer to gain social approval and fit in than rejected
   Nsi is an emotional process AND leads to compliance

Most likely to happen with strangers, concerned abt rejection
Or ppl you know as we want social approval from friends
Or stressful situations where ppl need more social support

Question 4

What was jenness’ study

Answer 4

Investigated whether group size affects isi taking place

Method..
- ppts as individuals estimated number of beans in bottle
- then discussed estimates either in large or small group (Individuals realised they differed widely in their estimates)
- group estimates arrived at then individuals made a second estimate by themselves

Results
There was a significant convergence towards group estimate
Average change if opinion was greater among females

Conc..
- judgements of individuals are affected by majority opinions
- Especially in ambiguous situations
Discussions only effective in changing opinion only if there are differences in others’ opinions

Question 5

What was asch’s study (just method)

Answer 5

He investigated NSI (and potentially ISI)

Method:
- tested conformity by showing ppts two large white cards
- one card had a standard line; other had three comparison lines
- one of the three lines was same as standard
- and others wee clearly substantially different (Unambiguous)
The ppt was then asked which line matched standard
-
- the ppts were 123 male american undergraduates
- each naive ppt was tested individually within a group of 6-8 stooges
- the first few trials all cfds made right answers, then made errors
- all confederates were instructed to give wrong answers on 12 critical trials
- 18 trials were in total for each ppt

Also was a control group = 36 ppts, 20 trials each

Question 6

What were the results of aschs study

Answer 6

Control group had an error rate of 0.4%
Ppts gave wrong answer 32% of the time.
— Overall 25% didn’t conform once, meaning 75% did

The arch effect describes this result
Wch is the extent to which ppl conform in unambiguous situations
- most said they conformed to avoid judgement
- some said they doubted their own eyes

Question 7

AO3 on conformity explanations: ISI (jenness)

Answer 7

+ research support for ISI = jenness’ study
- When made a second individual estimate after a group estimate of number of beans
- was a significant convergence to group estimate
—> so judgments of individuals affected by majority ops (esp in ambiguous sits)
.
.
can be used to evaluate asch - mention that “ppl doubted their own eyes”
> ISI as thought they lacked info, such as being unable to see

Question 8

What are variables affecting conformity (variants of aschs study)

Answer 8

1. Group size
   Wanted to know if group size we be more important than the agreement of a group
   - the more cfds saying wrong answer, the higher conformity rate
   - he found three cfds conforming to wrong answer leads to 32% conformity
   After that, the more cfds made little difference
2. Unanimity (agreement)
   Wanted to know if prescience of one other non conforming person
   Would affect naive ppt’s conformity rate (introduced cfd to disagree with majority)
   —> sometimes that cfd give wrong or right answer
   -
   - dissenting cfd led to reduced conformity,
   - whether the dissenter said right to wrong answer, enabling ppt to act independently
   This suggests influence of majority depends whether group is unanimous
3. Task difficulty
   He made standard and comparison lines more similar
   - conformity increased in these conditions
   - ISI plays greater role when task is harder/ambiguous (so look for guidance)

Question 9

Ao3 of asch’s research on variables affecting conformity (unanimity)

Answer 9

• may be most important factor, strongly affecting conformity
• in variations, when one cfd gave correct answer, conformity dropped from 33% to 5%
• so less likely to conform with social support, highlighting importance
  » only factor that when present at a minimum causes conformity rates to drop near to 0%.

Question 10

What was zimbardo’s study - Stanford prison experiment ? (Method)

Answer 10

He wanted to answer the question-
Do prison guards behave brutally due to sadistic personalities
Or is it the situation that creates this?
-> to investigate whether social roles affect the behaviour/whether they conform to behaviour expected

Method..
Set up mock prison in basement of Stanford uni, having volunteer sample of students
And the ones chosen were ‘emotionally stable’ after psychological tests
- randomly assigned roles of guards/prisoners
- were arrested at homes, blindfolded, stripped, deloused, given uniform and number
to increase realism

• prisoners daily routines wee heavily regulated
• had 16 rules to folllow (enforced by guards, 3 at a time in shifts9
• ## numbers used instead of names
• guards had own uniform with wooden club, handcuffs, keys, and mirror shades
• they had complete power over prisoners, even choosing when to go toilet

Question 11

SPE results

Answer 11

The guards played their roles with enthusiasm
And their behaviour became a threat to the prisoner’s psychological and physical health
—> stopped after 6 days instead of 14

Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against harsh treatment
- ripping uniforms , shouting and swearing at guards,
Guards retaliated with fire extinguisher, adopting divide and rule tactics
Harassing prisoners constantly to remind them they’re being monitored
- eg. Conducting frequent headcounts like in middle of the night
-Guards highlighted differences in social roles by creating lots of opportunities to enforce rules
And even punishing smallest accidents

After rebellion, prisoners became depressed and anxious
- one was released on the first day due to symptoms of psychological disturbance
- two more released on fourth day
- one went on a hunger strike (was force fed and punished by putting him in ‘the hole’)

Guards identified more and more closely with their role
With behaviour becoming more brutal and aggressive, some enjoying the power they had

Question 12

What was the bbc study, a more modern version of SPE

Answer 12

Men were randomly assigned guard or prisoner and behaviour
was examinated in a specially created prison
- 15 male ppts were in a matched pair design
- were divided into 5 groups, matched closely on key personality variables
- one in each group = guard; other two = prisoners
Study was to run for 8 days

Results..
- Ppts didn’t conform automatically to their social role like in SPE
Over study, the prisoners increasingly identified as a group
—> worked collectively to challenge guard authority (wanted egalitarian set of social relations in prison)

• Guards failed to identify with their role , making them reluctant to show authority over prisoners
• Leading to shift in power and collapse of prisoner-guard system

Question 13

Ao3 of zimbardo’s study (ethical issues, researcher bias)

Answer 13

• heavy criticism for ethical problems,as ppts experienced
• psychological harm. although agreed to participate,
• many felt unable to speak up and leave early, so study didnt fully protect ppts from harm
  » violates ethical guidelines, reducing replicability
  >
  > so therefore difficult to falsify the findings, so study lacks features of science
  > reducing psychologys reputation as a science and by unethical treatemnt of ppts
  .
  .
• Zimbardo played role as prison superintendent, becoming personally involved in study
• influencing events and failed to stop study when signs of distress were shown
• so researcher bias means result reflects zimbardos subjective expectations/experience as super intendent,
  »> not genuine behaviour and therefore a subjective interpretation

Question 14

What was milgram’s study method to explain obedience

Answer 14

Obedience is a form of social influence where one follows a direct order.
- the one issuing the order is usually authority figure (has power to punish when not obedient)

…

Wanted to investigate why German army followed hitler’s orders

Method:
He had 40 males (20 to 50, jobs ranged unskilled to professional) through newspaper ads/flyers.
The ad said a study about memory (deception), and offered a reasonable amt of money.
- paid outset and was a rigged draw for role:
cfd was learner and ppt was teacher
- the experimenter was another cfd in a lab coat
- ppts told they could leave anytime

• learner was strapped to a chair in another room wired to electrodes
  Teacher was required to give them increasingly severe electric shocks
  Issued Each time mistakes made on task.
  Shocks were demonstrated to teacher (after, weren’t real)
• started at 15v (slight shock) and rose through 30 lvls
• 15v each time. Was to 450v (danger- severe shock)
  When teacher got to 300v (intense shock), learner pounded on wall
  Giving no response to next question. Same happened at 315v
  —> but no further responses

When teacher wanted guidance from experimenter
He said no response = wrong answer
If didn’t want to continue, experimenter said
1. Please go on
2. The experiment requires you to continue
3. It’s absolutely essential you continue
4. You have no choice, you must go on

Question 15

What was milgram’ results

Answer 15

No ppts stopped below 300v
- 12.5% at 300v
- 65% went to 450v
Qualitative data was collected, showing extreme tension
Sweat, tremble, bite lips, and three had seizures.

Milgram asked psychology students predictions beforehand.
Estimated no more than 3% would go to 450v

All were debriefed, and sent a follow up questionnaire - 84% were happy to participate.

Question 16

Milgram’ study AO3 (ethical issues, low internal validity)

Answer 16

• ppts we’re deceived into joining the study (test of memory) and into believing the shocks were real
• showed extreme psychological distress (3 had seizures)
• so study doesn’t meet modern ethical guidelines so cannot be replicated
• ## so not falsifiable, reducing psychology’s reputation as a science
• HOWEVER, ppts we’re debriefed; argued temporary distress was significant in finding results
• and contributed greatly to psychological research as a justification
• inspired later studies , motivated to improve ethical standards in later studies
  .
  .
• bc reality of shocks could be doubted , not reflecting genuine obedience to authority figures
• ## may have continued to 450v due to demand characteristics- what researchers wanted to find
• BUT milgram reported most ppts believed they were real/genuine distress
• strengthens validity of findings , so gives insight into how people obey authority in morally hard sits

Question 17

What are situational variables (by milgram) and how do they explain obedience

Answer 17

He carried a large number of variations on his main study
To consider situational variables that might create greater or lesser obedience

• proximity (physical closeness of authority figure)
Decreases obedience the further away they are
As baseline was in same room, 65%, and decreased to 20% on phone

• location (place where order issued)
At yale was 65% and decreased to 48% at a rundown office block

• uniforms (have specific outfits demonstrating authority - to expect obedience)
Decreased from 65% in a lab coat to 20% if a civilian

Question 18

AO3 of variation studies of milgram (contributions,dispositional factors too)

Answer 18

(Can use same ao3 as original)

— must be dispositional factors contributing too, as not solely by situational
- bc none have obedience of 0%, so must be psychological/internal traits that make inclined to obedience
- high authoritarian personality, or simply a strong internalised respect for authority
- So we don’t know cause of why so high obedience in original.
- need a more holistic approach to explain obedience that can acknowledge lower level factors too
- so findings are incomplete
.
.
- contributed to understanding social aspects of psychology
- valuable insight into situational influence - obedience levels affected by proximity, location, uniform
- so help understand historical events like the holocaust
» why ordinary people committed serious actions under authority control
» so formed basis for research to be expanded on obedience

Question 19

What are social psychological factors explaining obedience as investigated by milgram

Answer 19

1. Agentic state
   It’s a mental state where we feel no responsibility for behaviour
   As acting for authority figure (frees us from our conscience to accept destructive demand)
   - an agent isn’t an unfeeling puppet; experiencing
   moral strain when realising what they’re doing wrong, but powerless to disobey

The opposite is autonomous state ; free to behave according to own principles
Shift from autonomy to agency is agentic shift (occurs when percieves an authority figure)
Ppl remain in agentic state due to binding factors
—> aspects of sit. That allow minimising damaging effect of behaviour
and hence reduce moral strain

..

2. Legitimacy of authority
   An explanation of obedience that suggests were more likely
   To obey those who we perceive to have more authority
   —> authority is legitimate/justified by their position in social hierarchy
   Eg. Parents, police, teachers

In milgram’s study, the experimenter demonstrates high position
Due to lab coat in yale,indicates high scientific position

Question 20

AO3 of social psychological factors agentic state, (milgram, limited explanatory power)

Answer 20

• milgrams study (result and conc)
• provides empirical support for ppl defering responsibility to authority figures: persist despite extreme guilt
• ## strengthening validity of explanation
• limited explanation , doesn’t account for all obedience
• bc can’t explain why 35% didn’t administer shocks until 450v under authority pressure
• so theory is incomplete . Dispositional factors like personality , moral reasoning may play a role.

Question 21

What’s the dispositional explanation for obedience

Answer 21

Adorno came with a different conclusion to milgram’s, saying high obedience was a type of psychological disorder.
They tried to locate its cause in individual’s personality

• Authoritarian personality
— characteristics
- have extreme respect for authority - are submissive to it
- show anger to those with a low social status
- traditional attitudes to race, sex and gender
- inflexible in outlooks/see in black and white (uncomfortable with uncertainty)

— origins
- formed in childhood - harsh parenting (expect absolute loyalty, severe criticism)
- create resentment and hostility in the child (can’t be expressed)
- fears displaced onto those perceived weaker - scapegoating
Explains central trait of obedience to higher authority
Wch is a hatred for those socially inferior(or other social groups)
—> this is a psychodynamic explanation

— measurement of authoritarian personality
Developed self report technique - the f (fascist) scale
- saying how much they agree with statements
(Eg. Ppl are divided into two classes, weak and strong)
-
High scores (agreeing to more) indicate a very authoritarian personality

Question 22

AO3 of authoritarian personality (milgram, f scale)

Answer 22

• support in milgrams study
• higher obedience scores found associated with authoritarian traits measured w f scale
• so empirical backing for idea dispositional factors like personality affect obedience
• gives credibility to theory , can partially explain why some obey authority figures more than others
  .
  .
• f scale methodology biased
• bc self report so may reflect social desirability rather than true personality
• ## limits reliability of findings supporting theory, as subjective experience when responding

Question 23

What is social support as explanations for resistance to SI (conformity and obedience wise)

Answer 23

Social support refers to when presence of ppl resisting
pressures to conform/obey can help others do also

— conformity
Pressure to conform is reduced if others there not conforming
- as asch demonstrated they don’t need to say right answer
- but simply not following majority let’s one feel free to follow own conscience
Other non conforming person acts as a model

BUT if non conforming starts to conform, ppt does too
So effect of dissent is not long lasting

..

— obedience
Pressure to obey is reduced if another is seen to disobey
- in one of milgram’s variations, obedience went from 65% to 10%
- when ppt joined by disobedient cfd
- ppt may not follow cfds disobedient behaviour
But persons disobedience acts as a model for ppt to copy
Freeing them to act from own conscience

Question 24

Ao3 social support (asch, applications)

Answer 24

• reseaech support- asch
• having a non conformist ally reduces conformity
• in one of asch’s variations (unanimity) less likely to give wrong answer when one cfd correct
• more likely to resist conforming, and so gives empirical evidence to validate the concept in social situations
  .
  .
• practical application
• bc can be used to strengthen independent behaviour in life (eg antibullying in schools)
• schools encourage students to stand w victims/speak out providing social allies
• to help resist peer pressure , giving practical value to concept
• so can be generalised in everyday to positively influence behaviour/promote ethical decision making
  »_space; reduce conformity or orpbedience in harmful contexts

Question 25

What’s the second explanation of resistance to social influence (LOC)

Answer 25

Locus of control is a concept concerned with internal bs external control - some are internals, believing things happening to them Are largely controlled by themselves (responisible) Eg, doing well in a test is bc you worked hard and vice versa - - externals believe things happen outside their control (outside forces) Eg. Doing good in tests was bc they used a good textbook/lucky and vice versa Ppl differ in ways they explain successes and failures. There’s a continuum (scale) with high internal and high external at each end with low internal and external in between —> ppl fall anywhere on the continuum .. Internals likely to resist to conform or obey. - if a person takes responsibility for their actions and experiences They’re more likely to base decisions on own beliefs (thus resist pressures) - also internals are seemed to be more self confident, More intelligent, achievement oriented, less need for social approval Suggesting more resistance to social influence

Question 26

Locus of control AO3

Answer 26

- support suggesting applications - bc ROTTER said promotion of internal LOC can enhance motivation and self esteem, - research in health psychology shown interventions to promote internal LOC can improve patient outcomes - take greater reponsibility for recovery (follow treatment plan, adopting healthy lifestyles) > so can be generalised into practical interventions . . - oversimplification as reductionist - bc resistance to SI is influenced by a combo of internal/external factors - internal LOCs still may conform under strong social pressure , so cannot alone explain resistance - only acknowledges psychological factors, not other social factors in resistance to SI - so maybe a holistic approach may be preferred due to limited explanatory power

Question 27

What is minority influence and what behaviours must minorities adapt to allow this

Answer 27

It’s where minority try converting majority to adopt A consistent and committed approach/behaviour/opinion - other ppl try to thoroughly examine message itself - wondering why they hold this position Conversion to minority position leads to deeper and longer lasting as ppl internalise this pov Minorities must adopt a particular behaviour Of being consistent, committed and flexible in arguments To persuade.

Question 28

Why should minorities become more consistant, committed and flexible to spread a pov

Answer 28

• consistency When ppl first expose to minority with diff pov It’s assumed they’re wrong. - - if minority have consistent approach, situation is reassessed - and opinion/behaviour’s considered more carefully Must be a reason why minority takes position And is confident enough to maintain over time .. • commitment difficult to dismiss minority if it adapts consistent commitment to its pov - - it suggests certainty, confidence and courage In face of hostile majority - minority has a greater cost than majority, Showing greater degree of commitment - hence showing it’s the right way Eg, suffragettes were committed in going against majority By burning buildings, not eating, striking .. • flexibility As minorities are typically powerless to majority, they Must negotiate their position, not enforcing it - - mugny says rigid minority refusing to compromise Shows minority as narrow minded and refusing to consider other opinions - but too flexible and prepared to compromise Risks being seen as inconsistent and not committed —> but some flexibility is better than none

Question 29

what was the moscovici study?

Answer 29

the aim was to study whether consistency in minorities was more influential than having less consistency. method - the sample was undergraduate women, who were checked for colourblindness beforehand. - they were split into 3 groups; 6 in each group (control, inconsistent (2 cfds) and consistent (2 cfds)) - - all groups were shown many slides, all diff shades of blue, and were asked to judged colour. - for consistent, two cfds called blue slides green on all 36 trials. - for inconsistent, they said green for 2/3 of the trials.

Question 30

what was the results of the moscovici study

Answer 30

in the control,the slides were called blue all throughout, showing the task is unambiguous. - for the inconsistent minority, 1.25% of the time, people conformed saying green - for the consistent condition, 8.42% of responses were green. in conclusion... evidence is provide that a minority can influence a majority AND consistency is a supported method to influence; a consistent minority is more influential than not.

Question 31

minority influence ao3 (consistency) - moscovici, real life

Answer 31

- Supporting Evidence: - Moscovici found a consistent minority was more likely to influence majority than inconsistent one. - by judging shades of blues and greens > so supports idea consistency makes minority appear confident and credible, >> drawing attention to their viewpoint and succeed in influence . . - hard to apply in real-life, - as minorities are rarely perfectly consistent and implications of Extreme consistency - can sometimes make them seem rigid, reducing persuasiveness. - so suggests while consistency helps influence, too much consistency may backfire, >> limits generalisability to real-life

Question 32

Whats social change and how has it happened through minority influence

Answer 32

It occurs when whole societies adopt new beliefs, attitudes and ways of doing things Social influence process invlove conformity and obedience and minority influence Be prepared to apply concepts to an example provided , or own example -- Minority influence - consistency - commitment - flexibility A combo of these factors may lead to deeper processing of the issue > this means many more ppl who just accepted status quo begin to think more of its unjustness >> spreads more widely as more and more think of issues being promoted Becoming bigger and bigger

Question 33

How has social change happened through conformity and obedience (social processes)

Answer 33

Conformity If the snowball effect is powerful enogh the minority may become new majority - NSI - ISI Oebedience - legitimate authority (perceived as higher class = obey) -- social change can be explained through these processes , and a combo of all these If social change occurs there may be a point where they experience social cryptomnesia (having a memory change occured but dont know how it happened)

Question 34

Ao3 social change

Answer 34

- moscovici as support > shows minority influence is successful as a form of social change > as consistency and commitment is key to forming internalisation if attitudes > so provides empirical evidence to the idea of SC . . - is often slow - social movements often take many years or decades before change occurs: Women’s suffrage movement - so suggests minority influence alone may not be sufficient to produce rapid social change. - Instead, other processes like conformity to new social norms/changes in government policy may also be necessary. - so, explanations of social change that focus only on minority influence oversimplify how change occurs in real societies.

Question 35

AO3 on conformity explanations: NSI (asch and application )

Answer 35

- asch can act as research support > supports NSI as ppts conformed to avoid standing out > suggesting social approval is a key factor in conformity - - - NSI has real world application in explaining and so understanding real social behaviour. - explaining peer pressure, trends, smoking, as want to fit in with peer group - not because they believe it will actually benefit them physically > >> so can help prevent these behaviours >> a study that exposed teens to the message that most of those their age dont smoke were less susceptible to start

Question 36

asch's research evaluation (high internal validity, low ecological validity)

Answer 36

- high internal validity as conducted in lab setting w standardised procedure > same lines, same sequence of answers from cfds > - extraneous variables contolled means conformity was caused by group pressure - not a third factor , so high internal validity and so reliabilty of result - . . - study had low ecological validity due to task being artificial > judging line lengths isnt normal in social sits > conformity involves more emotional decisions (particularly NSI, which asch demostrated) > > so finding cannot be generalised to explain how people conform in everyday

Question 37

Ao3 of zimbardo’s study (research against)

Answer 37

- BBC prison study found guards didnt naturally become abusive after acquiring the social role - prisoners did work tg to challenge authority system >> so dont naturally conform to to oppressive social roles as suggested by zimbardo - - behaviour may depend more on

Question 38

AO3 of social psychological factors - legitimacy of authority (limited, milgram)

Answer 38

- is a reductionist explanation - bc main focus is on situational factors - which only consist of high level factors - no lower level psychological factors (authoritarian personality) or bio factors > which explain why is supporting evidence like milgram’s, 35% didn’t go till 450v > > legitimacy of authority theory is too simplistic, needing a more holistic explanation for obedience . . - milgram can also support > strong empirical support: persisted even with moral strain - more likely to obey if perceive legitimate authority - so obedience is socially structured

Question 39

minority influence ao3 (commitment and flexibility) - suffragettes, too much flexibility

Answer 39

- too much flexibility can be limiting - bc can weaken minority’s position, making appear uncertain or inconsistent, > which reduces influence and highlights delicate balance between flexibility and commitment, >> >> demonstrating reality of minority influence being complex in terms of > what proportions of factors must be in use for success, > so reducing ease of generalisation . . - excessive Commitment may not always lead to influence - perceiveing the risk taken as attention-seeking rather than principled. - like with suffragettes who endured imprisonment and hunger strikes for their cause > >> likely to be seen as gaining attention, as also did commit arson > shows commitment alone is not sufficient, and effectiveness depends on how interpreted behaviour > > BUT were successful so maybe excessive commitment likely always leads to success in minority influence