Social Influence

?
  • Created by: Nathalieb
  • Created on: 26-05-18 12:04
Who made up the types of conformity and when?
Kelman 1958
1 of 133
What are the types of conformity?
Compliance, internalisation and identification
2 of 133
What are the explanations for conformity?
Normative social influence and informational social influence
3 of 133
What is compliance?
Go along to gain approval. Engage in social comparison so they can change their views to fit it. No change in underlying attitudes
4 of 133
What is internalisation?
Go along due to acceptance of views. Engage in a validation process; examine their own beliefs and others to see whose right. Can lead to acceptance publicly and privately
5 of 133
What is identification?
Accept influence because they want to be associated with another person or group. By accepting attitudes and behaviours, feel more a part of it. Elements of compliance and internalisation; accept the attitudes as right but purpose is to be accepted
6 of 133
What is normative social influence?
Humans are a social species. Fundamental need to companionship and a fear of rejection. Forms the basis of normative. Must believe they're under surveillance by the group. So people conform in public but don't internalise (don't agree privately)
7 of 133
What is informational social influence?
Individual accepts information as evidence about reality. Humans have a need to feel confident that they're correct. May make objective tests against reality but if can't, rely on other's opinions. Comply alone and publicly
8 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Difficulties distinguishing compliance and internalisation, normative influence, informational influence and informational is moderated by task type
9 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for conformity?
Difficulties distinguishing compliance and internalisation- Complicated by how we measure public compliance and private acceptance
10 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for conformity?
Normative influence- Linkenbach + Perkins: Teens told the majority of their peers didn't smoke were less likely to themselves. Schultz et al: Hotel guests told 75% of guests reused towels, reduced their towel usage by 25%
11 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for conformity?
Informational influence- Wittenbrink + Henley: Those told negative majority view of POC, later reported more negative beliefs about a black individual. Fein et al: Shown 'fellow participants' reactions during debate. Shifts in view of candidates
12 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for conformity?
Informational is moderated by task type- For some judgements, there is criteria, others theres not. So must base ideas on social consensus. So majorities should exert greater influence on social issues rather than physical reality (Research proved)
13 of 133
Who did a study into variables affecting conformity and when?
Asch 1956
14 of 133
What was the procedure?
123 male US undergraduates. Only one real participants. Took turns to call out the line out of 3 that matched the standard line. Real participants answered 2nd to last. 12/18 (critical) trials confederates instructed to give same incorrect answer
15 of 133
What were the findings?
On critical trials, average conformity of 33%. 1/4 never conformed, 1/3 conformed on 6 or more and 1/20 conformed on all 12. Conducted a control condition and participants made mistakes 1% of the time
16 of 133
What did participants say when interviewed after?
They continued to trust their judgement privately but wanted to avoid disapproval
17 of 133
What are the variables that affect conformity
Group size, unanimity and difficulty
18 of 133
How did group size affect conformity?
Little conformity with majority of up to 2. With 3, jumped to 30%. Further increases didn't change much
19 of 133
How did unanimity affect conformity?
When given the support of another real participant or confederate, wrong answers dropped to 5.5%. When dissenters answer was different but not correct, dropped to 9%
20 of 133
How did difficulty affect conformity?
Made line differences smaller. Conformity increased
21 of 133
What are the evaluation titles?
Child of its time, problems determining group size effect, unconvincing confederates and cultural differences
22 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for variables affecting conformity?
Child of its time- McCarthyism in US. Perri + Spencer: Used science students in 80s UK. 1 conformity response out of 395 trials. The used youths on probation with officers as confederates. Similar levels of conformity to Asch
23 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for variables affecting conformity?
Problems determining group size effect- Bond:Studies used a limited range. Investigators accepted Asch's conclusion and so used 3. No studies other than Asch have used majority greater than 9 and most use 2-4
24 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for variables affecting conformity?
Unconvincing confederates?- Mori + Arai: Participants given glasses with special polarising filters. 3 given identical ones, 4th given a different set. So judged that a different line matched. For females, results matched Asch's, not for males
25 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for variables affecting conformity?
Cultural differences- Smith et al: Analysed results of Asch-type studies across cultures. Average conformity was 31.2%. For individualist cultures, 25%, whereas collectivists, 37%
26 of 133
Who did a study into conformity to social roles and when?
Haney et al 1973
27 of 133
What was the procedure?
Prison in psychology basement at Stanford. Male students. Psychologically and physically screened. 24 randomly made guard or prisoner. Prisoners 'arrested', deloused, given ID numbers and a uniform. 3 meals, 3 toilet trips and 2 visits per weeks.
28 of 133
What did guards wear?
Uniforms, clubs, whistles and reflective sunglasses to prevent eye contact
29 of 133
What was Zimbardo's role?
Prison superintendent
30 of 133
How long was it meant to last and when did it actually stop?
Meant to last 2 weeks. Stopped after 6 days
31 of 133
Why?
Guards grew increasingly abusive. e.g. Prisoners woken at night and made to clean toilets with hands. Some volunteered extra hours without pay. 5 prisoners release early due to extreme reactions after 2 days. Forgot it was study basically
32 of 133
Who conducted the BBC prison study and when?
Reicher + Hallam 2006
33 of 133
What was the procedure?
Randomly given guard or prison. 15 males divided into 5 groups of 3 matched on key personality variables. 1 guard and 2 prisoners. 8 days
34 of 133
What were the findings?
Didn't automatically conform. Prisoners increasingly identified as a group and worked to challenge the guards and establish a more equalitarian set of social relations. Guards were reluctant to impose authority. Led to power shift, system collapsed
35 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Conformity to roles isn't automatic, demand characteristics, ethical and Abu Ghraib
36 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for conformity to social roles?
Conformity to roles isn't automatic- Guard behaviour varied from being fully sadistic to, for a few, Being 'good guards'. Didn't degrade or harass the prisoners, and even did small favours for them
37 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for conformity to social roles?
Demand characteristics- Banuazizi + Movahedi: Presented some details of the SPE procedure to a large sample of students who hadn't heard of it. Majority guessed the purpose and predicted results
38 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for conformity to social roles?
Ethical?- Zimbardo followed the guidelines of the Stanford ethics committee that approved it. Attempted amends with debriefing even years after and concluded no lasting negative effects. Reicher + Haslam took steps to minimise potential harm more
39 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for conformity to social roles?
Abu Ghraib- Military prison in Iraq known for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003-4. Zimbardo believed the guards were victims of situational factors (Lack of training, boredom, no higher authority) like in the SPE
40 of 133
Who did a study into situational variables affecting obedience and when?
Milgram 1963
41 of 133
What was the overall procedure?
40 participants. 'Study of how punishment affects learning'. 2 confederates: experimenter and another volunteer. Draw rigged lots so confederate was 'learner'. Every time he got a word pair wrong he was 'electrocuted' from 15v to 450v (15v increments
42 of 133
What was the procedure in the voice feedback study?
The learner, sitting in another room, gave mainly wrong answers and received shocks in silence until 300v. Pounded the wall and then gave no response till the next question. Repeated at 315v and then nothing. Experimenter had prods if teacher stopped
43 of 133
What were the findings?
Shock generator was labelled 'DANGER- SEVERE SHOCK' at 420v and '***' at 450v yet 26/40 went to 450v and all went to 300v. Only 5 stopped there
44 of 133
When Milgram asked students and colleagues to predict results, what did they say?
Few would go beyond 150v and only 1/1000 would go to 450v
45 of 133
What were the situational variables affecting obedience?
Proximity, location and uniform
46 of 133
How does proximity affect obedience?
Teacher and learner seated in same room. Obedience fell to 40%. In a variation where the teacher forced the hand onto a shock plate, it fell to 30%. When the experimenter gave orders over a phone, only 21% did 450v. Some gave the weakest repeatedly
47 of 133
How does location affect obedience?
Original was in the psych lab at Yale. When moved to a run down office, with no obvious affiliations with Yale, obedience only dropped slightly. 48% still delivered 450v
48 of 133
How does uniform affect obedience?
Bushman 1988: Female researcher dressed in a police uniform, as a business executive or a beggar. Stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a man for an expired parking meter. 72% obeyed police, 48% executive and 52% beggar
49 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Ethical issues, gender influence, external validity and historical validity
50 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for situational variables affecting obedience?
Ethical issues- Deceived his participants. Then couldn't give informed consent and they weren't really given the right to withdraw
51 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for situational variables affecting obedience?
Gender influence- Commonly held assumption is women are more susceptible to social influence so might expect differences. Milgram did a study with females. Same obedience but self-reported tension for those who went to 450v was significantly higher
52 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for situational variables affecting obedience?
External validity- Mandel challenges it as an explanation for real life. 1942- Josefow, Poland. Men of reserve battalion 101 told to mass kill Jews. Commanding officer said they could do other duties. Most did it despite factors increasing defiance
53 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for situational variables affecting obedience?
Historical validity- 50 years ago. Bless: Statistical analysis of Milgram experiments by others in 1961-85. Showed the same. Burger 2009: Identical levels
54 of 133
What is the agentic state?
A person sees themselves as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes. Feel responsible to the authority but not for their actions. Interviews with Milgram's participants: said they were doing what they were told
55 of 133
What is the agentic shift?
Shifting responsibility for one's actions onto someone else. Involves moving from an autonomous state into an agentic state
56 of 133
How does self-image affect obedience and how does the agentic state change this?
Participant may assess the consequences for their self-image and refrain. Once agentic, this is not relevant as it's not their responsibility
57 of 133
How do binding factors affect obedience?
there's always a social etiquette regulating our behaviour. To break of the experiment, they must breach commitment and will seem rude. These worries help bind the subject into obedience
58 of 133
How does the legitimacy of authority affect obedience?
To shift, they need the perception of a legitimate authority. Their power stems from their perceived position in a social situation. Milgram said there's an expectation that many situations have this figure (e.g. assumed it was the experimenter)
59 of 133
What is a legitimate authority?
Someone perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation
60 of 133
How does the definition of a situation affect obedience?
Tendency for people to accept definitions provided by a legitimate authority. Although they perform it, they allow the authority to define its meaning. They should stop due to suffering but feel commitment and experimenter says they're fine
61 of 133
How does the institution affect obedience?
If an authority figure's commands are harmful, it needs to occur in an institutional structure for them to be seen as legitimate. However, it occurred in a run-down building so may be the category of institution (i.e. lab)
62 of 133
What was Milgram's example of the agentic shift?
1968. Village of My Lai, during the Vietnam war. American soldiers found a village of non-combatants when they expected fighters. Lt William Called ordered his men to kill them. Over 500 killed. At trial, he didn't accept guilt; was following orders
63 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Real life, plain cruel, loss of personal control and planes
64 of 133
What is the first evaluation point of agentic state and legitimacy of authority?
Real life- Milgram said people **** back and forth. Lifton: German doctors at Auschwitz. Ordinary doctors concerned with welfare became capable of vile and lethal experiments. Transition was irreversible. Staub: Experience of evil changes individuals
65 of 133
What is the second evaluation point of agentic state and legitimacy of authority?
Plain cruel?- Social scientists believe Milgram detected signs of cruelty in his participants, who'd used the situation to express sadistic impulses. Given substance by SPE
66 of 133
What is the third evaluation point of agentic state and legitimate authority?
Loss of personal control- Fennis + Aarts: Reason for shift is a reduction in an individual's experience of personal control. Show increased acceptance to compensate. In their studies, it resulted in greater obedience and compliance
67 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point of agentic state and legitimate authority?
Planes- Tarnow: Studied data from a US national transportation safety board of serious plane accidents in 1978-90, where recorder was available and crew actions were a factor. Excessive dependence on pilot. NTSB found these errors in 19/37 accidents
68 of 133
What is the authoritarian personality?
A personality pattern characterised by strict adherence to conventional values and a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority
69 of 133
What is the F scale?
California Fascist scale. Used by Adorno et al in 1950 to measure the components that made up the authoritarian personality
70 of 133
What did it find?
These individuals were rigid thinks who obeyed authority and enforced strict adherence to rules and hierarchies. Usually raised by parents who used an authoritarian parenting style. Acquire the same attitudes through learning and imitation
71 of 133
What did Altemeyer do?
Altemeyer in 1981 remind the concept of the Authoritarian personality by identifying 3 of the original personality variables he referred to as right wing authoritarianism
72 of 133
So high RWA people possess what 3 personality characteristics that predispose them to obedience?
Conventionalism (An adherence to conventional norms and values), authoritarian aggression (Aggressive feelings towards people who violate these norms) and authoritarian submission (Uncritical submission to legitimate authorities)
73 of 133
How did Altemeyer test the relationship between RWA and obedience?
Participants were ordered to give themselves increasing shocks when they made mistakes on a learning task. Correlation between RWA scores and shocks. Told to press a red button at the end for an extra strong shock for not trying, vast majority did
74 of 133
Who did the key study into the authoritarian personality and when?
Elms + Milgram 1966
75 of 133
What was it meant to show?
whether Milgram's behaviour was only under specific situational conditions or it was dispositional
76 of 133
What was the procedure?
Follow-up study using participants who'd taken part in Milgram's experiment 2 months before. 20 obedient participants and 20 defiant participants. Each completed the MMPI scale and the F scale, questions about parents and attitudes to confederates
77 of 133
What is the MMPI scale?
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.Psychological test that assesses personality traits and psychopathology
78 of 133
What were the findings?
Found little difference between obedient and defiant participants on MMPI variables. Higher levels of authoritarianism among obedients. Found difference between the two consistent with the idea of the authoritarian personality
79 of 133
What were these differences?
Obedient participants reported being less close to their fathers during childhood, and were more likely to describe them in negative terms. also saw the authority figure as admirable and the learner less so. Not the same for defiant participants
80 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Support, Milgram, upbringing and left wing
81 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for the authoritarian personality?
Support- Dambrun + Vatiné: Used an 'immersive virtual environment', where an actor as 'learner' was displayed on a screen. Participants were informed it was a simulation. Responded as it wasn't. Correlation between RWA and maximum shock given
82 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for the authoritarian personality?
Milgram- Accepted it may be possible but lacks evidence. Milgram showed the social factors were primary causes of differences in obedience. Situation caused obedience despite persona. Relying on authoritarianism lacks flexibility for the variations
83 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for the authoritarian personality?
Upbringing- Many of the fully obedient participants reported a good relationship with parents. Also seems implausible, given the large number of obedient participants, for the majority to have grown up with harsh parents
84 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for the authoritarian personality?
Left wing- Begue et al: Replication of Milgram's as a game show. Interviews after using the 'World value survey questionnaire' revealed the more they defined as left, lower shock given. So, situational context doesn't exclude individual differences
85 of 133
How does social support help us resist conformity?
Asch found social support led to a reduction in conformity from 33% to 5.5%. It breaks the unanimity of the majority. Which raises the possibility that there are other, equally legitimate ways of responding
86 of 133
How does social support help us resist obedience?
Research has shown individuals are more confident in resisting if they find an ally. Disobedient peers act as role models. Able to use the defiance of peers as an opportunity to extricate themselves from causing further harm
87 of 133
How did Milgram show this?
Participant was one of a team of 3 testing the learner. The other 2 were actually confederates who, one after another, refused to continued. Only 10% continued to 450v
88 of 133
What is the locus of control?
Person's perception of personal control over their behaviour
89 of 133
What does it mean if you have a high internal locus of control?
Believe we can control events in our life. What happens is largely a consequence of your own ability and effort. More likely to display independence in thoughts and actions. Rely less on opinions so can resist
90 of 133
What does it mean if you have a high external locus of control?
What happens is determined by external factors. Things 'just happen to you' and are out of your control. Approach events with a more positive attitude, taking less responsibility and less likely to display independent behaviour and accept influence
91 of 133
What is the first characteristic that allows internals to resist?
Being active seekers of information and less likely to rely on opinions
92 of 133
What is the second characteristic that allows internals to resist?
More achievement orientated and so more likely to become leaders. Spector 1982: Relationship between LOC and leadership style. Internals were more persuasive and goal-orientated
93 of 133
What is the third characteristic that allows internals to resist?
Better able to resist coercion. Hutchins + Estey 1978: Simulated prison of war camp. Internals were better able to resist interrogation. More intense the pressure, the greater difference between internals' and externals' performance
94 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles of social support?
Response order, doesn't have to be valid and Rosenstrasse protest
95 of 133
What is the first evaluation point of social support?
Response order- Allen + Levine: A confederate answered first, giving the right answer, while the others gave the wrong answer. Real participants answered last. In another, the confederate answered fourth. Support was more effective in position 1
96 of 133
What is the second evaluation point of social support?
Doesn't have to be valid- Allen + Levine: Confederate providing support was wearing really thick glasses. In the 2nd condition, the supporter didn't wear glasses. The first is invalid support as the task is based on vision. But both reduced conformit
97 of 133
What is the third evaluation point of social support?
Rosenstrasse protest- 1943. Gestapo were holding 2000 Jewish men. Their wives and mothers protested. Gestapo threatened to fire if they didn't disperse. Still they demanded their release. Eventually they were set free
98 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles of locus of control?
Only normative, time and support
99 of 133
What is the first evaluation point of locus of control?
Only normative- Spector: Measured LOC and predisposition to social influence in 157 undergraduates. Found a significant correlation between LOC and normative but not for informational
100 of 133
What is the second evaluation point of locus of control?
Time- Twenge et al: Meta-analysis. Found Americans increasingly believed their fate was determined by others. LOC scores became more external in student and child samples substantially between 1960-2002. Likely due to the alienation they feel
101 of 133
What is the third evaluation point of locus of control?
Support- Avtgis: Meta-analysis of studies of the relationship between LOC and forms of social influence. Positive correlation between scores of internality/externality and on measures of social influence and conformity. Higher on external
102 of 133
What are the parts of minority influence?
Consistency, commitment, and flexibility
103 of 133
What is consistency?
Firstly assume the minority is in error. But if they adopted a consistent approach, others come to reassess and consider the issue more carefully as there must be a reason why they're fighting and are confident enough to maintain it
104 of 133
What study supports this?
Woode et al 1994: Meta-analysis of 97 studies of minority influence, and found minorities perceived as consistent were particularly influential
105 of 133
What is commitment?
Difficult to dismiss a minority when it adopts an uncompromising and consistent commitment. Suggests certainly, confidence and courage in the face of hostility
106 of 133
What is flexibility?
Because minorities are typically powerless compared to the majority, must negotiate rather than enforce. Mugny: Rigid negotiating seems narrow-minded whilst flexible seems inconsistent but a degree of flexibility is better than none
107 of 133
Who did the key study and when?
Moscovici et al 1969
108 of 133
What was the procedure?
Each group was 4 participants and 2 confederates. Shown blue slides varying in intensity and asked to judge. 'Consistent': Confederates called them green always. 'Inconsistent': Green on 2/3 of trials. 'Control': No confederates. Always said blue
109 of 133
What were the initial findings?
'Consistent': Participants then said green 8% of the time. Inconsistent exerted little influence
110 of 133
What were the later findings?
Asked participants to individually sort 16 discs. 3 were clearly blue and 3 green, rest were ambiguous. Had to establish a threshold. 'Consistent': Judged more to be green. Even greater for those who didn't initially go with the minority
111 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles?
Flexibility, real value, tipping point and name only
112 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for minority influence?
Flexibility- Nemeth + Brilmayer: Simulated jury. Discussed amount of compensation for someone in a ski-lift accident. When a confederate put forward his alternative and refused to change, there was no effect. One who compromised, exerted influence
113 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for minority influence?
Real value- Nemeth: Dissent opens the mind. People search for more information, consider more options, are more creative and make better decisions. Von Dyne + Saavedra: Dissent in work groups. Had better decision quality when exposed to minority
114 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for minority influence?
Tipping point- Xie et al: Social network. Individuals held a traditional view but were open. Added people with a consistent different view. Spoke to each other. Opinion stated shifting. The tipping point for the majority to accept minority was 10%
115 of 133
What is the fourth evaluation point for minority influence?
Name only- Nemeth: People only accept on the surface. They quickly become irritated by a view that persists. People are encouraged to fit in and fear repercussions. Means the majority view persists
116 of 133
What is social change through minority influence?
Moscovici 1980: If the majority is exposed to a persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change their views
117 of 133
What is the first condition?
Drawing attention to an issue- It creates a conflict that they're motivated to reduce. The suffragettes used educational, political and militant tactics to draw attention to issue
118 of 133
What is the second condition?
Cognitive conflict- Creates a conflict between what they believe and the position advocated. Means the majority think more deeply about the issues. The suffragettes created a conflict between the status quo and their issue
119 of 133
What is the third condition?
Consistency of position- Research has shown minorities are more influential in bridging about social change when they express their argument consistently. Suffragettes had protests and political lobbying for years, plus them playing a role in WW1
120 of 133
What is the fourth condition?
Augmentation principle- If they appear willing to suffer, they're seen as more committed and taken more seriously. Suffragettes were willing to risk imprisonment and death from hunger strike
121 of 133
What is the fifth condition?
Snowball effect- Minority influence initially has a small effect but this spreads as more people consider the issue until it reaches a tipping point, leading to wide-scale social change. Universal suffrage was finally accepted
122 of 133
How can social change be brought about through majority influence?
Perkins + Berkowitz 1986: Social norms approach. If people perceive something as the norm, they alter behaviour to it. The gap between norm and reality is a misperception and correcting this is the basis of the social norms intervention approach
123 of 133
What are social norms interventions?
Start by identifying a misperception related to a risky behaviour within a target population e.g. alcohol. Young adults misperceive the amount consumed by peers and use this to justify heavy drinking. Perception correction strategies can then be used
124 of 133
What is the 'Most of us don't drink and drive' example based on?
Was to reduce it in adults aged 21-34 in Montana, USA. Had been overrepresented in alcohol-related crashes statewide. Survey found only 20.4% reported driving after drinking in the previous month. 92% believed the majority had
125 of 133
How did it correct the behaviour?
Corrected this with the slogan 'Most Montana Young Adults (4 out of 5) Don't Drink and Drive'. Reported drinking and driving was reduced by 13.7% compared to counties that didn't run the campaign
126 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles of majority influence?
Limits and boomerang effect
127 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for social change through majority influence?
Limits- Dejong et al: Tested effectiveness of social norms marketing campaigns to lower alcohol use accord 14 college sites. Surveys at start and 3 years later. Students didn't show lower perceptions of peer or self drinking
128 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for social change through majority influence?
Boomerang effect- Schultz et al:Widespread nature means those whose behaviour is more desirable than the norm will receive it so can lead to more destructive behaviour. Research found a campaign to lower electricity usage increased it in desirables
129 of 133
What are the evaluation point titles of minority influence?
Minority influence is gradual, perceived as 'deviant' and communist manifesto
130 of 133
What is the first evaluation point for social change through minority influence?
Minority influence is gradual- History shows so. Because there's a strong tendency for humans to conform, groups are more likely to keep the status quo. So influence is more latent (i.e. creates potential for change not actual change)
131 of 133
What is the second evaluation point for social change through minority influence?
Perceived as 'deviant'- Majority may avoid aligning with them. Their message then has little impact because the focus is on the source not the message
132 of 133
What is the third evaluation point for social change through minority influence?
Communist manifesto- Need to avoid being seen as 'deviant'. Communism owes much to the minority who overcame this problem. Made it clear in their manifesto they had no seperate interests from the majority (working class)
133 of 133

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What are the types of conformity?

Back

Compliance, internalisation and identification

Card 3

Front

What are the explanations for conformity?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What is compliance?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What is internalisation?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Influence resources »