Psychology (Social Influence)

INTERNALISATION

Accepting the majority view in your lifestyle and genuinely pursuing it.

1 of 29

IDENTIFICATION

Moderate type of conformity where the view is valued in public but not necessarily agreed with privately.

2 of 29

COMPLIANCE

Superficial type of conformity where the view is completely privately disagreed with and yet completely publicly pursued.

3 of 29

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Conformity as a result of fearing rejection from a social group and seeking the approval of ones peers

4 of 29

INFORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Conformity as a result of wanting to be correct and so imitating so not to be incorrect

5 of 29

ASCH

1951 'line study', involving 8 'participants' (7 of them were actually confederates.) It involved 18 trials with 12 'critical' trials. 75% gave the wrong answer at least once and there was an overall conformity rate of 37%.

6 of 29

ASCH EVALUATION

Good control of extraneous variables / reliable study (due to lab conditions.) // Low ecological validity and hard to generalise. Also the problem of ethics with the deception element to it.

7 of 29

ASCH VARIATION STUDIES

Group Size: with 1 confederate there was a 3% rate, with 2 there was a 12.8% one and with 3 + there's a 32% rate./ Difficulty: The harder the task the higher the rate due to ISI/ Unanimity: Dropped rate to 5% when another dissenter was present.

8 of 29

PERRIN AND SPENCER

Repeated Asch's study using engineering students who demonstrated lower conformity rates, supporting ISI

9 of 29

ZIMBARDO

Included 10 prisoners and 11 guards in a prison simulation. Prisoners referred to by their prison numbers and wore identical uniforms. Guards wore tinted glasses and carried batons. The distress of the study caused its termination on the 6th day.

10 of 29

ZIMBARDO EVALUATION

The study had a good control of variables but was quite limited in terms of its potential demand characteristics, low ecological validity, observer bias, and harsh ethical implications.

11 of 29

DEINDIVIDUATION

The theory proposed by Zimbardo of becoming so immersed in group norms that you lose your individual sense of identity.

12 of 29

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

Prisoners learned that nothing they did had an effect (such as rioting) so succumbed to the role.

13 of 29

MILGRAM

Explaining acts of genocide, to question why we obey. The participant acted as the 'teacher' and the confederate the 'learner'. Lowest was 15v and highest 450v. All went to 300v and 65% to 450. The instructor wore a lab coat and issued 4 prods.

14 of 29

MILGRAM EVALUATION

Good external validity (Holfing et all supported the study demonstrating how 21/22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands.) The study did have ethical implications which would be limiting.

15 of 29

MILGRAM VARIAION STUDIES

Proximity: Instructor in the same room - 46% obedience rate. Over the phone - 20.5% one. Location: In a run-down office the rate dropped to 47.5%. Uniform: When a 'member of the public' issued the demands the rate was 20%- its lowest.

16 of 29

AGENTIC STATE

A mindset where we shift personal responsibility onto people ordering us to reduce pressure on our own conscience. High anxiety is experienced in this state.

17 of 29

AUTONOMOUS STATE

A mindset where we feel fully responsible for our own actions and have independence in our actions.

18 of 29

AGENTIC SHIFT

The shift from autonomous to agentic, stimulated perhaps by the social hierarchy and authority roles.

19 of 29

LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

Where we are willing to sacrifice some of our independence to allow the social hierarchy to function effectively. This can include acceptance of authority from parents/teachers/police etc. The army is a clear example and can be seen in My Lai 1968.

20 of 29

BINDING FACTORS

What allows the individual to carry on obeying. Perhaps that they felt obliged, were in denial of their actions, felt pressured by the surroundings, or shifted blame to the 'victim' or instructor.

21 of 29

MILGRAM CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

In Germany, 85% obeyed to 450v whereas in Australia 16% did. This demonstrates a significant degree of importance of cultural differences in conformity.

22 of 29

DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS

Personality attributes to conformity or obedience that are contrasted with situation factors.

23 of 29

ADORNO

Devised the authoritarian personality -testing it through the F-scale. Shows if you're more authoritarian and thus more susceptible to conformity due to higher recognition of social hierarchy. Creates hostility and stems from harsh parenting.

24 of 29

ADORNO EVALUATION

Methodological issues like the idea that all the questions are swayed in the 'same direction', decreasing the validity.

25 of 29

JULIAN ROTTER

Locus of control: Internal is the belief that you're at fault for your own actions and personally responsible. The most resistant to social influence. External: Factors out of you're control determine your successes and failures.

26 of 29

JULIAN ROTTER EVALUATION

Holland replicated Milgram's study but did a questionnaire first to determine who was internal and who was external. 37% of internals did not go to 450v whereas 23% of externals didn't.

27 of 29

MINORITY INFLUENCE

Commitment- Augmentation Principle means as a result it appears valuable/ Flexibility: willing to negotiate/ Consistency: synchronic (in agreement) and diachronic (holding the view for an extended period/

28 of 29

SNOWBALL EFFECT

The more who switch from minority to majority, the faster the rate of conversion.

29 of 29

Get Revising

Psychology (Social Influence)

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Psychology resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Psychology resources: