Social influence

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Social influence.
    • Conformity: The tendency to change what we do (behaviour) and think or say (attitudes) in response to the influence of others or social pressure.
      • A01: Sherif, condition 1: participantsasked to measure/estimate how far a spot of light was, the task was ambiguous task and results varied dramatically. Condition 2: participantsin groups of 3, again asked to estimate how far a spot of light moved, found that induvidualschanged their answer to agree with others in their group (group norm).
        • A02: :)- Shows conformity. :(- Groups of 3 were not good, results could have varied if they done different sizes, task was ambiguous.
          • Types of Conformity: Compliance- conform publicly with news or behaviours but privately diagree, the most superficial type and known as Normative social influence (NSI). Internalisation: Deepest  form of conformity, views and attitudes are taken on deeply and permanently, also known as Informationsocial influence (ISI).
            • Asch: A01: used male americans, in group of 7-8 one participant was a naive who answered last, had to guess which line was the same as the one on the other card. 37% conformity rate was found, participants agreed with the wrong answer for 1/3 of the critical trials, 25% did not conform once, 75% conformed at least once. This shows the impact a majority can have on an individual. Why did they confom? they actually saw the lines in the same way as everyone else, doubted themselves so yielded to majority or didn't want to be the only one disagreeing.
              • A02:  :)- has clear results and a good controlled environment (lab), evidence can be applied to a real world setting (Jurors feel pressure to conform Tanford and Penrod). :(- lacks validity as its insignificant and people are more likely to conform as they had to answer out loud there was increase in pressures to avoid looking stupid may only be relevant in special circumstances. Perrin reproduced this work and found that in a group of 396, only 1 person conformed. Smith and bond conducted a meta analysis using ash's method.
    • Obedience to authority: Obedience is a type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person who is usually a powerful person or has authority.
      • Milgram: Looked at why people obey legitimate authority figures. 40 male participants found by an ad (volunteer sample), they was getting paid and had the right to withdraw, 2 confederates were authority figure and learner, naive person was teacher. If learner got the question wrong then teacher had to give them shocks, in different rooms.
        • Findings: 65% of people went to 450 volts and it was clearly labelled 'danger: severe shock'. Conclusion: people will obey to authority even when you ask them to do something inhumane.
        • A02: Ethical issues- deception: from the advertisement it said the experiment was looking at punishment and learning, whereas it was actually looking at obedience to authority. The participants had informed consent however that was only for the experiment advertised not the one they actually done, so they didn't actually have informed consent, They did have the right to withdraw however when they asked too they was told that it was necessary that they continued with the study.
          • Insights from mil gram's studies: when the location was moved to a run down office, only 48% conformed, when the teacher was in the same room as the learner 40% did, when the teacher had to press the learners hand on shock plate it was 30%, when the experiment gave orders over the phone it was 21% and when another teacher refused to give the shocks it was 10%.
            • what individual differences affect obedience to authority? as part of Milgrams research he noted background characteristics of participants to identify what ones were constant with higher or lower obedience. Age, marital status, occupation and military experience had no effect however educational history and religious preference did affect a persons ability ro resist obedience to authority.
              • Zimbardo: Volunteer sample of men, randomly given role of prisioner or guard, then they had to act like these people and were put in prisions. After less than 36 hours one of the prisioners had to be taken out because of fits of rage, uncontrollable crying and severe depression. prisoners began to react passively to their guards and gradually began to feel hopeless and not in control of their lives whereas guards began to behave in an abusive authoritarian way and enjoyed the new found power that came with the uniform.
                • Conclusion:  people are likely to obey to authority figures even when they know they are not real authority figures. People adopted the roles which were given to them and prison guards abused this role  to exert even more controland authority.
                • A02: :)-  High ecological validity as both situations were realistic so can be generalised to actual prisons, the participants took it seriously and fulfilled their roles, Participants had informed consent and were told a lot about the study before it happened however weren't told that they would be arrested. :(- Ethics: Psychological and physical harm were both present, Zimbaro lost his objectivity as this should have ended a lot quicker but he was seeing it form a psychological point of view rather than a human point of view.
              • Also, higher educated people were less likely to obey than less educated people so less likely to resist obedience. Roman catholic were more likely to obey than protestants.
            • Gradual commitment: participantshave already given lower levels of shocks so it becomes hard to resist the experiments requirement to increase the shocks. Agentic shift: the condition a person is in when he see's himself as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes. The role of Buffers: teacher and learner were in separate rooms so the teacher didn't have to see the learner go through the pain, this is a buffer.
            • Hotling et al 'Dr Smith' (fake) called and asked the nurses to administer a drug exceeding the daily dosage to patient, 21/22 nurses did  without hesitation. power and authority of doctors seemed to influence nurses behaviour more than rules.
          • Participants did have the right to withdraw however when they asked too they was told it was essential that they continued with the study, protection of participants was not done by Milgram as psychological issues and harm did occur.
        • Predictions before were that nearly all participants would refuse to obey, expecting very low to go over 150 volts and only 4% to reach 300 volts.
    • Independent behaviour:  Refers to resistance of conformity and pressure to obey authority.
      • Locus of control: this refers to a persons perception of personal control over their own behaviour. Internal LOC means you attribute the cause of events in your life to your own control. External LOC means you locate control outside of your own ability and tend to feel like you have less control over what happens to you. High internals perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour and take responsibility for it. High externals view their behaviour as being caused by external influences or luck.
        • LOC research has found a number of characteristics  of internals and externals that are relevant to indepeneded behaviour , 1: high internals are active seekers in info which is useful to them and so are less likely to rely on the opinions of others, 2: high internals tend to be more achievement -orientated and consequently are more likely to become leaders, 3: high internals are between able to resist coercion from others.
          • A02: Twenge et al conducted a meta analysis and found that young americans believe their lives are controlled by outside forces rather than their own behaviour. LOC studies were more external in student and child samples between 1960 and 2002, suggested that these findings are uniformly negative as externality is correlated with poor school achievement and decreased self- control.
    • Understanding social change: Rosa parks refused an order to sit in the section for black people on the bus, this act of defiance sparked a chain in the US which led to the US supreme  court ruling against segregation law on buses and it then extended nationwide. Adolf Hitler ordered people to kill 11-14 million people 6million were jewish and the people done it because he was promising them a life which they wanted as they had such a poor way of life. Social change happens when a whole society adopts a new belief or way of behaving which then becomes the norm.
      • Moscovici believed that majority influence was not the only way in which groups exerted pressure on individuals. without a minority we would have no social change as we would have no group doing things differently.
      • Drawing attention to the issue: being aware of a minority makes us  aware of issue they are addressing, if their views are different to the majorities then this creates a conflict that we want to reduce (Fathers 4 justice), this could also lead to the snowball effect. The role of conflict: sometimes we can't dismiss the minority as 'add' so the conflict remains. Consistency: research has shown that minorities tend to be more influential in bringing about social change when they express their arguments consistently, if they are consistent they are taken more seriously, Wood et al found that minorities who were perceived as consistent were particularly influential.
        • The augmentation principle: states that if there are risks involved in putting forward a point of view them those who express those views are taken more seriously by others.
          • The snowball effect: this effect demonstrates how something small (the minority) can be added to and escalate and turn into something big, resulting in social change. Internal locus of control- if the minority have an internal locus of control then they believe that they are responsible for their own actions and are therefore more motivated to try and change society.
            • A02:  minority influence and terrorism Kruglanski argues that terrorism can be considered a form of social change through the process of minority influence. The aim of terrorism is to bring about social change when direct social force is not possible.
              • Minority influence and terrorism: Consistency and persistence- according to research into minority influence the minority is most effective when it shows both consistence and  persistence . The persistent suicide bombings in palestine are designed to demonstrate their commitment to overthrowing israeli occupation. Augmentation- the personal costs of their lives for their case shows severe commitment to others and can begin to be taken more seriously, Terrorism attempts to bring about social change by conveying the desperation of minorities and drawing attention to the legitimacy of their claims.
  • Milgram: Looked at why people obey legitimate authority figures. 40 male participants found by an ad (volunteer sample), they was getting paid and had the right to withdraw, 2 confederates were authority figure and learner, naive person was teacher. If learner got the question wrong then teacher had to give them shocks, in different rooms.
    • Findings: 65% of people went to 450 volts and it was clearly labelled 'danger: severe shock'. Conclusion: people will obey to authority even when you ask them to do something inhumane.
    • A02: Ethical issues- deception: from the advertisement it said the experiment was looking at punishment and learning, whereas it was actually looking at obedience to authority. The participants had informed consent however that was only for the experiment advertised not the one they actually done, so they didn't actually have informed consent, They did have the right to withdraw however when they asked too they was told that it was necessary that they continued with the study.
      • Insights from mil gram's studies: when the location was moved to a run down office, only 48% conformed, when the teacher was in the same room as the learner 40% did, when the teacher had to press the learners hand on shock plate it was 30%, when the experiment gave orders over the phone it was 21% and when another teacher refused to give the shocks it was 10%.
        • what individual differences affect obedience to authority? as part of Milgrams research he noted background characteristics of participants to identify what ones were constant with higher or lower obedience. Age, marital status, occupation and military experience had no effect however educational history and religious preference did affect a persons ability ro resist obedience to authority.
          • Zimbardo: Volunteer sample of men, randomly given role of prisioner or guard, then they had to act like these people and were put in prisions. After less than 36 hours one of the prisioners had to be taken out because of fits of rage, uncontrollable crying and severe depression. prisoners began to react passively to their guards and gradually began to feel hopeless and not in control of their lives whereas guards began to behave in an abusive authoritarian way and enjoyed the new found power that came with the uniform.
            • Conclusion:  people are likely to obey to authority figures even when they know they are not real authority figures. People adopted the roles which were given to them and prison guards abused this role  to exert even more controland authority.
            • A02: :)-  High ecological validity as both situations were realistic so can be generalised to actual prisons, the participants took it seriously and fulfilled their roles, Participants had informed consent and were told a lot about the study before it happened however weren't told that they would be arrested. :(- Ethics: Psychological and physical harm were both present, Zimbaro lost his objectivity as this should have ended a lot quicker but he was seeing it form a psychological point of view rather than a human point of view.
          • Also, higher educated people were less likely to obey than less educated people so less likely to resist obedience. Roman catholic were more likely to obey than protestants.
        • Gradual commitment: participantshave already given lower levels of shocks so it becomes hard to resist the experiments requirement to increase the shocks. Agentic shift: the condition a person is in when he see's himself as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes. The role of Buffers: teacher and learner were in separate rooms so the teacher didn't have to see the learner go through the pain, this is a buffer.
        • Hotling et al 'Dr Smith' (fake) called and asked the nurses to administer a drug exceeding the daily dosage to patient, 21/22 nurses did  without hesitation. power and authority of doctors seemed to influence nurses behaviour more than rules.
      • Participants did have the right to withdraw however when they asked too they was told it was essential that they continued with the study, protection of participants was not done by Milgram as psychological issues and harm did occur.
    • Predictions before were that nearly all participants would refuse to obey, expecting very low to go over 150 volts and only 4% to reach 300 volts.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Stress resources »