Social Infuence Revision Cards

Types

• Internalisation - genuinly accepts group norms
• Identification - publically change opinions, don't privately agree, want to be part of group
• Compliance - 'going along with it'

Explanations

• Informational Social Influence
  • agree with opinion of majority as believe it is correct, we want to be right too, internalise
• Normative Social Influence
  • agree with opinion of majority as want to be accepted, be like, acceptance

AO3

• Research Support - Lucas et al (2006), greater conformity to incorrect answers in harder questions
• Individual differences in ISI - Asch (1955), students less conformist than others
• ISI+NSI work together - don't know which is at work, less conformity with 1 dissenter

• 123 male undergraduates, each tested in a group of 6-8 confederates (not aware)
• Confederates gave correct first few times, then wrong, Asked to compare lines
• 75% conformed at least 1 time - said to avoid rejection (NSI)

Variations

• Group Size - up to 3 more wrong made big difference, then little difference
• Unanimity - 1 dissenting confederate meant conformity reduced by 25%
• Task Difficulty - Harder = Increase, ISI

AO3

• Low Ecological Validity - artificial task, does not happen in real life
• Code of Ethics - not protected from psychological harm (internal conflict) (Back et al - Autonomic arousal increased in participants), deception
• Biased Sample - All US male students (chilld of its times?), Perrin + Spencer did in England only 1/396 conformed, Lack population validity
• Findings only apply to certain situations - group of strangers so conformity may be higher with friends?

Stanford Prison Experiment (Hanley et al 1973)

• Mock prison in uni basement, 'emotionally stable' students randomly assigned roles
• Prisoners - 16 rules, taken from houses, ***** searched, given prisoners unfiorms
• Guards - Uniform, power, reflective sunglasses, handcuffs, wooden club
• Guards took to roles quickly - posed threat to mental and physical health of prisoners
• Prisoners rebelled, but met with harshness
• 1 removed on 1st day, 2 more 4th, 1 hunger strike and force fed, simulation cancelled day 6

AO3

• Biased sample - all male students
• Lack of informed consent - taken from homes in night, did not know extend of guard's power
• Observational - can't establish IV and DV
• Extreme results may not have been predicted but psychological distress peeps not removed
• Zimbardo became too emotionally attached to group - influenced results

• 40 male US volunteer participants (paid $4.50), went to Yale and met researcher and another participant (who was a confederate), real always given the role of teacher, shocks given to actor
• Teacher asks questions and if student gets one wrong, get increasing voltage shock
• Teacher could hear distress of person getting shocked
• All participants went to at least 300V, 65% to 450V, if asked researcher asked them 'to please continue', 'experiment requires you to continue', 'essential you continue' 'you must go on'
• Teacher - tension, sweating ,stuttering trembing

AO3

• Broke ethical guidelines - decieved patients (eg, role rigging), no portection from harm
• Lacks ecological validity - lab so different from real life, can't generalise findings, Hofling (1966) found nurses obedient despite unjustified instructions
• Lacks population validity - biased sample, unable to generalise, particulartly collectivist cultures/females, can't be sure they would respond in the same way
• Internal validity questionnable - Orne + Holland (1968) said participants acted like this and didn't believe it was real, Milgram - 70% believed shocks were real but hear doubt on tapes

• Proximity - teacher and learner in same room - obedience dropped 65%-40%, touch proximity dropped by 30%, on phone dropped by 20.5%
• Location - conducted in run down building (contrast w/ Yale) - obedience fell 47.5%
• Uniform - original wore grey lab coat, role of experiment taken over by 'member of public' (confederate) - obedience dropped to 20% (lowest of all variations)

AO3

• Research Support - Bickman Field experiment (1974) - jacket+tie/milkman/security guard - asked passers by to do small tasks - 2x more likely to listen to guard than jacket+tie
• Lacks internal validity - Orne + Holland - work out not real, so contrived some may not believe, unclear if results due to obedience/saw through deception
• Cross-cultural replications - Miranda et al (1981) - found 91% obedience in spanish students
• BUT Smith and Bond (1998) say most replications in developed west

Agentic State

• Agency theory says socialised from a young age to follow rules, need to surrender free will
• Acting independently = autonomous state, oppposite is agentic (do tasks for authority figures)
• Agentic shift = when little personal responsibility
• In Agentic state in Milgram's, when don't have to press lever themselves, obedience 92.5%!

Legitamavy of Authority

• Some have more power than others in society, most accept but problems when legitimate authority becomes destructive (Hitler/Stalin)

AO3

• Blass+Schmidt (2001) - students blamed experimenter rather than participant, due to LA
• Limited explanation - agentic state does not explain why some did not obey/Hofling's, therefore only explains obedience in some situations
• Cutural differences - Kilham+Mann (1974) did in Australia - 16% went to max voltage, Mantell in Germany found 85% went to top, authority more accepted in some cultures

The Authoritarian Personality - Adorno et al (1950)

• 2000 middle-class white Americans, unconious attitudes towards racial groups
• F-scale used to measure AP, eg obedience + authority more important for kids to earn
• People who scored highly were 'stong' and were contemptuous of the 'weak'
• Also concious of their and other people's status'
• Positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
• Tended to have 'harder' upbringings'

AO3

• Research Support - Milgram+Elms (1966) - correlation between high on F scale and ones fully obedient in shock test, only correlation but there is a link
• Limited esplanation - any explanation in terms of individual hard to generalise, not all same
• Political bias - measures right-wing oedience only, can't explain whole political spectrum
• Biased sample - all male, US - generalise results?
• Closed questions - therefore may not have reflected true feelings

Social Support

• Conformity - pressure to confrom reduced if others aren't (Asch's variations)
• Obedience - pressure to obey reduced if others not obeying (Milgram's)

• Research Support(C) - Allen+Levine(1971), conformity decreased when 1 dissenter
• Research Support(O) - Gamson et al(1982), 88%rebelled, showing peer support links to greater resistnace (as they were in groups), higher than Milgram

Locus of Control

• Rotter (1966) - internals=things that happen down to them, externals=believe in fate
• People with internal LOC less likely to conform - more self-confident, take responsibility

• Research support - Holland (1967), 37% internals continued to highest shock, but only 23% of externals - shows internals' greater resistance, increases validity of LOC
• Contradictory research - Twenge (2004) meta-analysis of US studies into LOC over 40 years - people more resistnat to obedience + more external, due to changing society?

• Consistency - Moscovici (1969) - 172 female participants colour perception test half wrong confederates all the time/half wrong 2/3 times, found inconsistent trial - consistent minority more peruasive
• Commitment - MLK/NM/RP - risky/extreme behaviour, draw attention, demonstrates inportance of their cause if putting themselves in danger
• Flexibility - Nemeth (1986) - how much money to give ski lift victim, 1 confederate in each group, half groups flexible half inflexible, inflexible had little/no effect on majority

AO3

• Research support (consistency) - Wood et al (1994) - meta-analysis of Moscovici's study, found minorities who were consistent were more successful
• RS for depth of thought - Martin et al (2003) gave message supporting viewpoint - 1 group heard minority agree, other majority - less likely to change opinion if heard from minority, suggests deeply processed and has enduring effect
• Artificial Tasks - colour of slide v artifical - lacks external validity

How MI creates SC:

• Consistency / Deeper processing / Drawing attention / Augmentation Principle (Majority pays attention to risky actions) / Snowball effect / Social Cryptoamnesia (society knows change has happened but don't know how) / NSI (reporting attitude of majority) / Gradual commitment (adopt new behaviour over time)

AO3

• Metholodigcal issues - Asch, Milgram, Moscovici
• MI barrier to SC - Bashit et al - interested why many resist SC, found most in minority groups live up to stereotype which is off-putting (don't want to be associated with that)
• Research for NSI - Nolan et al (2008) - gave out letters to encourage less energy use, half said everyone already doing it, half didn't, found experimental gruop lowered energy use more - so SC can have positive effect
• Different levels of cognitive thinking - Mackie (1987) - diagrees w/ Moscovici - when majority acting in a way that is different from ourselves, we are forced to think more deeply about their reasons - casts doubt over Moscovici's study