1
Q
define conformity
A
yielding to group pressure, usually influenced by a larger group of people
2
Q
define compliance
A
individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of the group to be accepted or avoid disapproval
3
Q
compliance features
A
- desire to fit in
- public but not private acceptance and does not result in any change in the persons underlying attitude
- weak and temporary form
4
Q
define identification
A
individuals adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group, because membership of that group is desirable
5
Q
features of identification
A
- stronger type of conformity but still temporary
- both public and private acceptance
6
Q
define internalisation or true conformity
A
individuals genuinely adjust their behaviour and opinions to those of a group
7
Q
features of internalisation
A
- exposed to the belief systems of others and having to decide what they truly believe in
- if they believe it is correct, it will lead to public and private acceptance and will not depend on presence of the group
8
Q
define normative social influence
A
when someone confirms to be apart of the group and be accepted and not rejected which leads to more compliance
9
Q
define informative social influence
A
when someone conforms to feel confident that their beliefs and ideas are correct, especially when we are uncertain in unfamiliar and ambiguous situations and leads to internalisation. helps us to survive in situations
10
Q
evaluation for types and explanations of conformity strengths
A
- research supports important role of normative beliefs shaping behaviours, as seen in a. study where when adolescents were exposed to the fact other their age don’t smoke they were less likely to smoke too
11
Q
evaluation for types and explanation of conformity weaknesses
A
- individual differences are not considered as everyone’s personality to different and are not all driven to want to fit in
- relationship between compliance and internalisation is complicated as it is difficult to determine when each one is taking place
- features of the task affect the level of conformity, as when asked about Bristol, the subjective question of whether bristol is the most fun city in south-west england, we look to other people for similar answers
- not always aware that the behaviour of others affected ours, so we are not directly aware we have been affected under nsi- people less likely to say behaviour of neighbours affected their own energy conservation
12
Q
sherif study on informative social influence
A
- participants were asked to estimate how far a point of light has moved, first as individuals, in groups of 3, and then by themselves again
- group estimate condition changed their personal estimate and a group norm emerged
13
Q
asch (1951) experiment procedure on normative conformity
A
- investigated degree to which individuals would conform to a majority, but they were told they would be taking part in a visual discrimination task
- 123 american male student volunteers who were in groups with 6-8 other confederates
- seated around a table and asked to match the standard line to one of the 3 comparison lines in 18 different trials
- real participant was either second to last or last
- 12 of the 18 were critical trials where confederates gave identical wrong answers
- first 6 trials, correct answers were given
- control group of 36 participants who were tested individually to see how accurate individual judgements were
14
Q
asch (1951) findings and conclusion
A
- 37% conformity to incorrect trials
- 5% conformed to all 12 critical trials
- 25% never conformed
- 75% conformed at least one
- in the control, only 0.04% were incorrect which can eliminate extraneous variables like eyesight
- post event interview showed participants conformed due to distortion of perception (believed the majority estimates were correct), distortion of judgement (aware of their mistake but did not trust their own judgement) or distortion of action (knew they were right but conformed so they didn’t stand out)
15
Q
factors affecting conformity
A
- group size
- unanimity
- task difficulty
- mood- people are more likely to conform when they are in a good mood
- gender- women are more likely to conform
- culture- meta analysis found that conformity is higher in “collectivist” cultures
16
Q
how does group size affect conformity
A
- smaller group size leads to less conforming
- with 2 confederates, participants only conformed 14% of the time
- with 3 confederates, participants only conformed 32% of the time
-there was little change to conformity rate above 32% with bigger group size - asch only did experiments up to 9 people
17
Q
how does unanimity affect conformity
A
- as one confederate agreed with the participant, this made the participants less likely to conform and fell to 5.5%
- if a different, wrong answer was given, conformity fell to 9%
18
Q
how does task difficulty affect conformity
A
- more likely to conform if the task is more difficult- ISI
- rely on other people
19
Q
evaluation of factors affecting conformity strengths
A
+ mori and arai (2010) showed that confederates acted convincingly as a separate study, where partisans wore glasses with polarising filters, so they saw the lines differently and distorted but they gave the same results
+ high internal validity as there was strict control over extraneous variables
20
Q
evaluation factors affecting conformity weaknesses
A
- ethical issues like deception and psychological harm
- lacks ecological validity
- gender issues as only males were sampled but studies show women are more conformist
- cultural bias as only americans were used but collectivist cultures show higher rates of conformity
- took place during McCarthyism where people were scared to go against the majority so it lacks temporal validity
- asch only used a sample size of maximum 9ish you cannot apply to all findings and lacks internal validity for larger groups
- only 1/3 conformed where 2/3 stuck to their original judgement, which perhaps showed a study of people thinking independently instead of
21
Q
define conformity to social roles
A
how people are expected to behave and think depending on the different social situations. involves identification
22
Q
procedure of zimbardos (1973) prison stanford experiment
A
- mock prison set up in the basement of psychology department in stanford university
- male paid, student volunteers were psychologically and physically screened and the 24 most stable were randomly assigned to be prisoner or guard
- prisoners were “arrested” and taken to “prison” blindfolded and were made to wear uniform and a number
- guards also wore uniform and mirror sunglasses so there could be no eye contact
- planned to last 2 weeks
- zimbardo became prison superintendent
23
Q
results of zimbardos stanford prison experiment
A
- first few days the guards became more tyrannical and abusive towards prisoners, like waking them up in their sleep and force them to clean toilets with their bare hands
- some guards were so enthusiastic they volunteered to do extra hours without pay
- 5 prisoners had to be released early due to extreme reactions like crying and anxiety
- study was terminated after 6 days when Christina Maslach reminded the researcher they were only participants in a study
- in interviews afterwards, participants were shocked about how out of character they were
24
Q
conclusion of zimbardos stanford prison experiment
A
- both guards and prisoners conformed to their roles as guards became more cruel and sadistic and prisoners became more obedient and passive
- social role and environment can affect behaviours as seemingly well balanced men turned aggressive
25
evaluation of zimbardo study strengths
- good control over variables like only emotionally stable partisans were chosen so it has high internal validity
- practical application as it can be used to explain events in Abu Ghraib, where Iraqi prisoners were tortured by US soldiers, where situational factors made abuse more likely due to factors like lack of training and boredom, or even help to understand how to to improve places like prisons
26
evaluation of zimbardos study weaknesses
- individual differences and personality can determine the extent to which a person conforms
- behaviour was more of a consequence if demand characteristics and social desirability bias
- Reicher and Hallam BBC experiment does not support as participants did not conform to their social roles automatically because guards failed to identity with their status and impose authority so the prisoners challenged this
- unethical like deception and physical harm
- lacks population validity as it was only white male american volunteers
27
define obedience
type of social influence where you comply with the demands an authority figure, which is generally perceived positively to maintain order in society
28
difference between obedience and conformity
direct order vs implicit pressure
authority figure vs people of equal status
different behaviour to authority figure vs same behaviour of social group
embrace behaviour vs deny influece
29
milgram aim and description of study
- to find out why people obey authority, especially to explain the behaviour of germans under Hitler
- 40 american males aged 20-50 years volunteered and were paid $4.50
- believe they were taking part in a study of memory and learning
30
milgram study procedure
- participants give the role of the “teacher” and confederates being the experimenter and learner, in a rigged “random” allocation
- participant was given a 45v shock himself to “check” and helped him believe it was real
- participant had to ask the learner a series of word pair tasks and when they got the answer wrong they had to administer an electric shock
- electric shocks were incremented by 15v at a time, ranging from 300v to 450v and 330v was marked as lethal
- shocks were not real and learner was acting
- learner have a predetermine set of responses, based on 3 wrong answer to one correct answer
- at 315v, the learner screamed in pain and kicked the wall
- at 330v the learner went silent
- experimenter had a series of standardised prods when participant refused to administer a shock
31
milgram prods
“ please continue” or “please go on”
“ the experiment requires that you continue”
“ it is absolutely essential that you continue”
“ you have no other choice, you must go on”
32
milgram predicted results
- 14 psychologists at yale were provided a detailed description of experiment and asked how they would expect them to behave
- all predicted insignificant majority would go to the end of the shock series and very few would go beyond very strong shock designation
33
milgram actual results
- 2/3 obeyed order to continue giving shocks to 450v max
- only 9 participants stopped at 315v
- no participants broke off before 300v
- most participants displayed physical symptoms of discomfort lie, sweating, twitching and nervous laughing
- 3 suffered seizures
34
milgram conclusions
- people will obey authority figure
- shows how germans may have been following. orders instead of deliberately inflicting harm
35
milgram study evaluation strengths
+ supported by naturalistic obedience studies, like Hofling et al which found that 21 out of 22 nurses administered an unfamiliar drug beyond its dosage because “Dr Smith” told them to
+ more recent, similar studies have shown similar results so it still has temporal validity
+ debriefed afterwards and 84% said they were glad they had taken part
36
milgram study evaluation weakness
- ethical issues like deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm, but can be argued to have increased external validity and contributed to valuable psychological research
- cannot be generalised as only males were used, where a study administering shocks to a puppy showed women to be much more obedient, with all of them administering the maximum voltage
- psychologists have argued that the participants didnt believe the shocks were actually real meaning his results could lack internal validity
- socially sensitive issues as it may dismiss a criminals responsibility and blame the situation they were in, which provides difficulties for the judicial system
- cultural bias as only americans were used, a research shows obedience in spanish participants is 90%, compared to 28% among australians
37
situational factors affecting obedience
proximity- person is more likely to obey when they cannot see the consequences of their actions and are in closer proximity to the authority figure
location- person is more likely to obey when in a location linked to another status and integrity
uniform- person is more likely to obey if they are wearing uniform as it gives them a higher status
38
milgram proximity variations
-obedience dropped to 40% when the teacher was in the same room as the learner
- touch proximity variation was when the teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate, and obedience dropped to 30%
- experimenter instructed teacher by telephone and obedience dropped to 23% and they frequently pretended to give shocks or gave weaker ones
39
milgram location variation
- variation in a run down office building dropped obedience slightly to 48%
40
milgram uniform variation
- obedience higher when wearing a lab coat compared to normal clothes- 20% when member of the public
41
define agentic state
individuals see themselves as an agent of the authority figure giving the order and and the authority figure is responsible for the consequences of the individuals actions
42
define agentic shift
process of shifting responsibility for one’s actions onto someone else
43
define autonomous state
individual sees themselves as personally responsible for their actions
44
how can people adopt and be binded to agentic state
- need to maintain a positive self image, and if the action is no longer their responsibility it would no longer reflect their self image even if it is morally wrong
- participants stay blinded into this state as they do not want to break off and appear rude
45
define legitimacy of authority
need to believe that there is a legitimate authority figure who is perceived to be in control
46
how does legitimacy of authority leading to obedience and strengthened
- people accept the definitions of a situation provided by the legitimate authority so they become reassured
- authority figures commands are perceived to be more eliminate if they occur in an institutional structure
47
evaluation of agentic state and legitimacy of authority strengths
+ support for power of legitimate authority through aviation accident where NTSB report found “lack of monitoring” errors in 19 of 37 accidents investigated
+ other students watched milgrams study and felt that the experimenter was to blame for the harm of the learner as they were a legitimate authority
48
evaluation of agentic state and legitimacy of authority weakness
- may be other reasons that explain obedience that questions agentic state as Nazis obeyed to shoot civilians in Poland, despite not receiving a direct order
- culture bias as countries differ in degree to which they are traditionally obedient- australia 16% compared to 85% of germany
49
adorno’s findings in authoritarian personality
- rigid thinkers, enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies
- f-scale (fascist)- measure different components that make up authoritarian personality
- those who scored higher tended to be raised by parents who use authoritarian parenting styles like physical punishment
- strict arresting means the child feels constrained which creates aggression, but also they will be afraid they will be disciplined so they are hostile to those inferior to them
50
robert altimeter three qualities of authoritarian personality
- conventionalism- adherence to rules
- authoritarian aggression- aggression towards people defying rules
- authoritarian submission- uncritical submission to legitimate authority
51
elms and milgram (1966) study procedure
- follow up study on 20 obedient participants and 20 defiant participants from milligrams original study
- asked them to complete MMPI and f scale, which included finding out their relationship with their parents during childhood and attitude towards experimenter and learner
52
elms and milgram (1966) findings
- little different between obedient and defiant participants on MMPI variables
- higher levels of authoritarianism in obedient
- obedient participants reported being less close to fathers during childhood and would describe them negatively
- obedient saw authority figure as admirable and the learner much less
53
evaluation of dispositional explanation for obedience strengths
+ elms and milgram support the dispositional explanation
-> however researchers found that obedient participants had several characteristics that were unusual of authoritarians, like they didn’t glorify their fathers, didn’t experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood and do not have hostile attitudes towards their mother
+ research supporters people who define themselves as right wing are more likely to obey authority so altemeyer’s political explanation is supported as there is a link
54
evaluation of dispositional explanation for obedience weaknesses
- education may determine both authoritarianism and obedience as Middendorp and Meleon found that less educated people were found to be more authoritarian
- flawed methodology- acquiescence bias (tendency to agree) and investigator bias
- situational factors seem to be more important as milgram believed that the specific social situations participants were in caused them to obey or resist
- doesn’t look into far left authoritarianism (bolshevism) where political theorist argues the two extremes eventually meet
- lacks ecology validity as it cannot explain reasons for mass obedience like in Nazi germany
55
define social support
the perception that an individual has assistance available from other people
56
how does social support show resistance to conformity
- asch found introduction of an ally who also gave the right answer caused conformity levels to drop from 33% to 5.5%
- presence of an ally provides the individual with an independent assessment of reality and makes them feel more confident in their decision
57
how does social support show resistance to obedience
- disobedient peers act as role models in which the individual can model their own behaviour
- in one of milgrams variations, the participant was one of a team of three testing the learner, where the other two refused to continue shocking the learner and withdrew, which caused only 10% of the participants continuing to the maximum shock level
58
evaluation of social support in resisting social influence
+ rosenstrasse project supports as a group of german women in 1943 in berlin protested together and demanded the release of their husbands and sons, and eventually they were set free
+ research support as individuals with a majority of friends who drank alcohol were more likely to have engaged in drunkenness, but also if a friend resisted they could too
- response position is more important as allen and levine found that confederates giving the right answer first was more effective than giving it just before the participant- more complex
59
define locus of control
extent to which people perceive themselves as being in control of their own lives
60
what does having a high internal LOC mean and characteristics
believe they can affect the outcomes of a situation due to their choices and decisions
-active seekers of information that is useful to them
- achievement oriented and more likely to be leaders
- resist coercion from others
61
what does having a high external LOC mean
believe things turn out a certain way regardless of their actions, usually by luck or fate. these people are more likely to be under social influence
62
evaluation of locus of control in resisting social influence strengths
+ research support as a meta analysis by Avigis found individuals with a higher external locus of control tend to be more easily persuaded
+ research support as Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether participants were internals or externals, where more externals continued to the highest shock level
63
evaluation of locus of control in resisting social influence weaknesses
- does not explain all instances of resisting social influence as Spector found a correlation between external locus of control and NSI conforming more, but there was no relationship between ISI and locus of control
- not all research supports the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence as twenge et al found from american obedience studies people became more resistant to obedience but also more external
-> however can be due to changing society where events are outside of personal control
64
define minority influence
motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms and achieved through conversion where new beliefs are internalised over a period of time
65
variables affecting minority influence
consistency
commitment
flexibility
66
how does consistency affect minority ifneluce
- show stability in the expressed position over time
- others can reassess the position as more people adopt this position
- wood et al carried out a meta analysis and found minorities being especially consistent were particularly influential
67
define diachronic consistency
group remains consistent over time
68
define synchronic consistency
group remains consistency amongst themselves so when a view changes they all change
69
how does commitment affect social influence
- dedicated to particular cause or activity
- willing to make sacrifices
- greater commitment means more people will take them seriously
70
how does flexibility affect social influence
- willing to compromise are more effective at changing majority opinion
- must negotiate with the majority rather than enforce it
- rigid minority that refuses to compromise are seen as dogmatic
- however, cannot be too flexible as they risk being see as inconsistent and not dedicated to the cause
71
moscovici et al study procedure
- to investigate the role of consistent minority upon the opinions of a majority in an unambiguous situation
- female participants were placed into 32 groups of six
- each group had 4 real participants and 2 confederates
- told it was an investigation into election
- each group was shown 36 blue slides in varying intensity of the colour
- partisans were given eye tests beforehand to check they weren’t colourblind
- after the main study, participants were asked to sort 16 coloured discs into blue or green, 3 were unambiguously green and blue, 10 were ambiguous
72
what were the conditions in moscovici et al study
- consistent condition- confederates answered wrong the whole time and said they were green
- inconsistent condition- confederates said 24 of slides were green and 12 were blue
- control condition had no confederates and they answered blue throughout
73
moscovici et al study results
- 8.2% agreement with the minority in consistent condition, 32% agreed at least once
- only 1.25% agreement in inconsistent condition
- those in the consistent condition judge more discs to be green compared to inconsistent condition
74
evaluation of moscovici et al study
+ wood et al carried out meta analysis of 97 similar studies and found consistent minorities were the most influential
- lacks ecological and population validity
75
evaluation of minority influence strengths
+ nameth and brilmayer found that a confederate who was flexible exerted more influence
=> however only evident when they shifted late in negotiations and didn’t cave early
76
evaluation of minority influence weaknesses
- mackie argues majority are more likely to create greater message processing therefore minorities may jot have as big of an impact
- difficult to convince people of the value of dissent as people are tolerant but can quickly become irritated
- minority groups face additional challenge for them to be successful as identification is a key factor in enhancing persuasiveness, if they identify they are more likely to take them seriously
77
define social norm intervention
action of correcting a misconception by identifying a widespread misconception relating to risky behaviour and correcting it
suffragettes and civil rights movement
78
stages of social norm intervention
1- drawing attention to the issue
2- cognitive conflict between minority and majority so they think more deeply about the issues
3- consistency- constantly express their argument and willing to make sacrifices
4- augmentation principle and show commitment means people will take them more seriously
5- social cryptoamnesia
79
define social cryptoamnesia
snowball effect as it spreads widely and minority view is accepted as the norm
80
evaluation of social processes in social change strengths
+ research support with nolan et al that shows conformity within a neighbourhoods energy consumption led to social change through NSI
81
evaluation of social processes in social change weaknesses
- minority influence is gradual and therefore may not be as influential in creating social change
- mackie (1987) suggest that majority evidence may create deeper processing if you do not share that view and therefore the social influence processes are challenged and may lack validity
- minority may not have as big of an influence as majority do not want to look deviant, so they face another challenge in creating social change
- social norms, intervention does not always work as DeJong et al found that social norm intervention did not change drinking patterns
- a normative message can be harmful and they expose the audience to a behaviour they already engage with, which leads to the boomerang effect where they may proceed to do the opposite
