Social Influence

Herbert Kelman
1958 - Suggested that there are 3 ways people conform to the opinion of a majority.
1 of 67
Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard
1955 - Developed 2-process theory arguing 2 main reasons people conform.
2 of 67
Elliot Aronson
2011 - Conformity is a change in a person's behaviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
3 of 67
Schultz et al. - Support ISI
2008 - SUPPORT ISI - Change behaviour of hotel guests by using printed messages encouraging them to save energy. Messages suggesting other guests using fewer towels most successful.
4 of 67
Lucas et al. - Support ISI
2006 - SUPPORT ISI - Students to answer math questions; easy or mroe difficult. Greater conformity to incorrect when harder question. Most true for students who rated poor ability.
5 of 67
McGhee and Teevan- Individual Differences NSI
1968 - INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES NSI - Students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform.
6 of 67
Asch - Individual Differences ISI
1955 - INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ISI - Students less conformist, 28%, than other participants, 37%.
7 of 67
Perrin and Spencer - Indivudal Differences NSI
1980 - INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES NSI - Conducted study involving science and engineering students and found very little conformity.
8 of 67
Asch - Research Support NSI
1951 - RESEARCH SUPPORT NSI - Many went along with clearly wrong answer, felt self-conscious giving right and afraid of diaspproval. Asked to write down answers instead of say out loud, fell to 12.5%.
9 of 67
Solomon Asch
1951, 1955 - Asked which of 3 lines matched standard. 123 American male undergraduates. Each naive P tested in group of 6-8 confederates. Each P had 18 trials and on 12, confederates gave wrong answer.
10 of 67
Asch's Findings
Naive gave wrong answer 36.8% of time, 25% not confrom on any trials, 75% at least once.
11 of 67
Asch's Variations
Group Size - three confederates, confromity 31.8%, addition of more made no differnce. Unanimity - presence of dissenting confederate, conformity reduced by quarter of when majority unanimous. Task Difficulty.
12 of 67
Perrin and Spencer - Limitation of Asch
1980 - Engineering more confident about lines, only 1 conformed in 396 trials.
13 of 67
Fiske - Artifical Situation, Asch
2014 - Asch's groups were not very groupy. Findings do not generalise.
14 of 67
Neto
1995 - Only men tested by Asch. Women might be more conformist, more concerned about social relationships.
15 of 67
Bond and Smith
1996 - US, individualist culture and people are more concerned about themsevles rather than social group. Collectivist, like China, social group is more important than individual and may have higher conformity.
16 of 67
Williams and Sogon - Limitation of Asch
1984 - Conformity higher when majority of group were friends than when strangers.
17 of 67
Philip Zimbardo
Late 1960s - Do prison guards behave brutally because they have sadistic personalities, or is the situation that creates such behaviour.
18 of 67
Haney et al
1973 - Zimbardo set up a mock prison in Stanford University psychology department basement.
19 of 67
Philip Zimbardo
16 rules to follow, guards worked in shifts 3 at a time. Study stopped after 6 days instrad of 14. Within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against guards. 1 released on first day as showed psychological disturbance. 2 released on 4th day.
20 of 67
Banuazizi and Mohavedi - Limitation of SPE
1975 - P's were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Performances based on stereotypes. 90% conversations about prison life.
21 of 67
Fromm - Limitation of SPE
1973 - Accused Zimbardo of exaggerating power of situation to influence behaviour. Only third behaved in a brutal manner, another third keen on applying rules fairly.
22 of 67
Zimbardo - Limitation of SPE
2007 - The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners, sympathising with them, offering them cigarettes and reinstating priviledges.
23 of 67
Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam - Limitation of SPE
2006 - partial replicaiton of SPE. BBC Prison Study. Researchers used SIT to explain this outcome.
24 of 67
Tajfel
1981 - Social Identity Theory, SIT, to explain outcome of BBC Prison Study.
25 of 67
Stanley Milgram
1963 - Question regarding The Holocaust. 40 male P's. Aged 20-50, offered $4.50 for participation. Shock from 15V, 30 levels, to 450V. At 300V no response to question. No response after 315V.
26 of 67
Milgram Finding's
1963 - None stopped below 300V, 12.5% 5 P's stopped at 300V. 65% continued to 450V. Prior Milgram asked 14 students to make predictions - no more than 3% to 450V. 84% glad to have took part.
27 of 67
Orne and Holland - Limitation of Milgram
1968 - P's didnt really believe in set-up. They guessed it wasn't real electric shocks.
28 of 67
Gina Perry - Limitation of Milgram
2013 - Tapes of P's and many expressed doubts about the shocks.
29 of 67
Sheridan and King - Limitation of Milgram
1972 - Similar study where real shocks given to puppy. 54% male, 100% female delivered what they thought was fatal shock. Milgram reported 70% P's believed shocks genuine.
30 of 67
Hofling et al. - Suuport Milgram
1966 - Studied nurses on hospital ward, levels of obedience to unjnustified demands by doctors very high, 21 out of 22 obeying.
31 of 67
Alex Haslam and Steve Reicher - Limitation of Milgram
2012 - Analysed behaviour in study. Every time 4th prod used, P quit.
32 of 67
Diana Baumrind - Milgram's Ethical Issues
1964 - Very critical of deception.
33 of 67
Rank and Jacobson - Limitation of Holfing
1977 - Contradict conclusions. Replicated study but altered contrived aspects of orginial procedure that may have maximised obedience. 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed doctor's order before being prevented from carrying it out.
34 of 67
Milgram - Proximity
In same room, dropped from 65% to 40%. In touch proximity, obedience dropped to further 30%. Telephone, dropped to 20.5%.
35 of 67
Milgram - Location
Run down building, obedience fell to 47.5%.
36 of 67
Milgram - Uniform
Experimenter played by normal member of public, obedience dropped to 20%, lowest of variations.
37 of 67
Bickman - Support Milgram
1974 - 3 conditions, people twice as likely to obey security guard than jacket and tie.
38 of 67
Miranda et al. - Support Milgram
1981 - Found obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students.
39 of 67
Smith and Bond - Limitation of Miranda
1998 - Most replications in Western developed societies.
40 of 67
David Mandel - Criticised Milgram
1998 - Offers excuse or alibi for evil behaviour.
41 of 67
Milgram - Agentic State
1974 - Agentic shift happens when someone percieves someone else as a figure of authority.
42 of 67
Blass and Schmitt - Suppport Agentic State
2001 - Video of Milgram's study and asked who is repsonsible for harm to learner.
43 of 67
Kilham and Mann - Support Legitimacy of Authority
1974 - Replicated Milgram's study in Australia, 16% went to top of voltage scale.
44 of 67
Mantell - Support Legitimacy of Authority
1971 - German P's, 85% obeyed and went to top of voltage scale in Milgram's study.
45 of 67
Madel - Limitation of Agentic State
1998 - Described German Police Battalion 101.
46 of 67
Kelman and Hamilton - Supports Legitimacy of Authority
1989 - My Lai massacre 1968 supports this explanation.
47 of 67
Adorno et al.
1950 - Investigated causes of obedient perosnality in study of over 2000 middle-class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes.
48 of 67
Milgram and Alan Elms - Support F-Scale
1966 - Interviews with small sample of fully obedient P's who scored highly on F-Scale.
49 of 67
Hyman and Sheatsley - Limitation of Milgram and Alan Elms
1954 - Link is merely a correlation.
50 of 67
Christie and Jahoda - Limitation of Adorno
1954 - Politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality.
51 of 67
Greenstein - Limitation of Adorno
1969 - F-Scale as a comedy of methodological errors.
52 of 67
Julian Rotter
1966 - Proposed LOC.
53 of 67
Allen and Levine - Support Resistance to Conformity
1971 - Conformity decreased when one dissenter in Asch-type study.
54 of 67
Gamson et al. - Support Resistance to Obedience
1982 - Higher levels of resistance in study than Milgram.29 out of 33, 88%, rebelled.
55 of 67
Holland - Support LOC
1967 - Repeated Milgram's baseline study. 37% internals did not continue to highest shock level, only 23% externals did not continue.
56 of 67
Twenge et al. - Limitation of LOC
2004 - Analsysed American LOC studies, from 1960-2002. 40 year-period. People more resistant and more external.
57 of 67
Rotter - Limitation of LOC
1982 - LOC only invovled in novel situations.
58 of 67
Moscovici et al.
1969 - Minority influence. Group of 6, view set of 36 slides. In each group, 2 confederates, consistently said slides green on two-thirds of trials. P's gave same wrong answer on 84.2% of trials, 32% same answer as minority on at least one trial.
59 of 67
Moscovici et al. Second Group
1969 - Inconsistent minority, conformity to 12.5%. Third group, no confederates, got wrong on just 0.25% of trials.
60 of 67
Wood et al. Support Consistency
1994 - Meta-Analysis of 100 similar studies and found consistent minorities most influential.
61 of 67
Martin et al. Support Depth of Thought
2003 - Measured support of P's.
62 of 67
Zimbardo
2007 - Obedience can be used to create social change through process of gradual commitment.
63 of 67
Nolan et al. - Support Normative Influences
2008 - Investigated if social influence processes led to reduction in energy consumption in a community. Messages in San Diego, California every week for 1 month.
64 of 67
Charlan Nemeth - Limitation Minority Influence
1986 - Effects of minority influence likely to be mostly indirect and delayed.
65 of 67
Diane Mackie - Limitation of Moscovici
1987 - Majority influence may create deeper processing if you do not share their views.
66 of 67
Bashir et al. - Limitation of Social Change
2013 - Barriers to social change, people resist social change, even if necessary, to avoid stereotypes and being part of a minority.
67 of 67

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard

Back

1955 - Developed 2-process theory arguing 2 main reasons people conform.

Card 3

Front

Elliot Aronson

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Schultz et al. - Support ISI

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Lucas et al. - Support ISI

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 Conformity resources »