Social Influence

what are the 3 types of conformity?

Compliance, Identification and Internalisation

1 of 98

define compliance

you may agree in public with a group of people but you may privately disagree with the group's viewpoint or behaviour. It is a temporary change

2 of 98

define identification

when you conform to the demands of a given social role in society. This extends over several aspects of external behaviour but there is still no change to internal personal opinion.

3 of 98

define internalisation

you publicly change your behaviour to fit in with the group while also agreeing with them privately. An internal and external change of behaviour - the deepest level of conformity.

4 of 98

what are the 2 explanations for conformity?

normative social influence and informational social influence

5 of 98

define normative social influence

where a person conforms to fit in with the group because they don't want to appear foolish or be left out.

6 of 98

define informational social influence

where a person conforms because they have a desire to be right and look to others who they believe may have more information.

7 of 98

variables affecting conformity - who studied it and when?

Asch in 1951 (line study)

8 of 98

Asch's line study - who took part, what type of sample, where did it take place?

123 US male undergraduates, volunteer sample, US university

9 of 98

Asch's line study - during each procedure how many were real participants and when did they answer the question?

1 real participant, 6 confederates, the real participant would answer 6th (1 confederate would answer after them)

10 of 98

Asch's line study - what was the procedure?

all 6 confederates and 1 real participant sat round a table (participant in 6th place) and were asked to look at a standard line and three other lines of different lengths. they took turns to say which line was the same length as the standard.

11 of 98

Asch's line study - how did the confederates answer?

the confederates gave the same wrong answer on 12 of the 18 trials. Asch wanted to find whether the participants would stick to what they believed was right or cave in to the pressure of the majority and conform.

12 of 98

Asch's line study - what were the findings?

the average conformity rate was 33% but there were also individual differences. 25% never conformed. The majority who conformed continued to privately trust their own judgements but changed their public behaviour to avoid disapproval - compliance

13 of 98

Asch's line study - what were the 3 variations of Asch's line study that he carried out?

group size, unanimity and task difficulty

14 of 98

Asch's line study - what did he find about the effect of group size?

he varied the amount of confederates from 1-15. With 3 confederates, conformity to the wrong answer rose to 31.8%, but the addition of further confederates made little difference - no need for a majority of more than 3.

15 of 98

Asch's line study - what did he find about the effect of unanimity?

he introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. Conformity reduced by a quarter from the level of the original study. the dissenter enabled the participant to behave more independently. - unanimity enhances majority influence.

16 of 98

Asch's line study - what did he find about the effect of task difficulty?

he made the standard line and the comparison lines more similar in length. The conformity increased with the harder task. - informational social influence plays a greater role in ambiguous situations as people look to others for guidance

17 of 98

Conformity to social roles - who studied it and when?

Zimbardo in 1973 (Zimbardo's prison study)

18 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - who took part, what type of sample, where did it take place?

24 US male students, volunteer sample, in a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University in America

19 of 98

Zimbardo's Prison Study - how were the participants picked and how were roles assigned?

tests were done to find the most psychologically and physically stable volunteers, roles were assigned randomly to either play the role of prisoner or prison guard

20 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - how were the prisoners treated?

unexpectedly arrested at their homes, deloused, given prison uniform and ID, had 16 rules enforced by guards, could have 3 meals and 3 supervised toilet trips a day and 2 visits a week.

21 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - how were the guards treated?

they were given uniforms and reflective glasses and had to work shifts, 3 at a time.

22 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - what was Zimbardo's role in the study?

he appointed himself Superintendent

23 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - how long did the study last and why?

planned for 2 weeks but was stopped after 6 days - a postgraduate student intervened and reminded them why they were there and that it did not justify the abuse the participants were receiving.

24 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - what were the findings?

they'd forget it was a study at times, conformed to their roles even when they were unaware of being watched, 5 prisoners released early due to extreme reactions, guards were abusive towards the prisoners, in 2 days violence and rebellion broke out

25 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - what conclusions could be made?

our situation heavily influences our behaviour, role stereotypes influenced the actions of the participants, all conformed to their roles and treated it like a real prison, aggression in prison is due to power structure and personality of guards.

26 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of informed consent?

no debrief beforehand, didn't know true reason why they were there

27 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of deception?

information was held back from them for the purpose of getting accurate results

28 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of right to withdraw?

not told of their right to withdraw and led to believe they couldn't leave

29 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of protection from harm?

exposed to psychological harm - disorientated, tired, humiliated, felt they couldn't leave etc. Zimbardo was becoming more and more desensitised to the situation and treating it more like a real prison

30 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of privacy?

prisoners unexpectedly arrested at their homes, stripped before being deloused and clothed, their day and night was controlled and what alone time they had was disrupted

31 of 98

Zimbardo's prison study - issues of confidentiality?

no - they reamained anonymous (known by their ID number) and so confidentiality was maintained

32 of 98

Obedience - who studied it and when?

Milgram in 1963

33 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - who took part, what type of sample, where did it take place?

40 American men, volunteer sample, Yale university in America

34 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what 3 people were there in each procedure?

the real participant (the teacher), a confederate (the learner) and the experimenter wearing a lab coat

35 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what were the roles and how were they assigned?

teacher and learner, they drew lots but they were rigged and the confederate would always be the learner and the participant the teacher

36 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what was the procedure?

the teacher could see and hear the experimenter, and couldn't see but could hear the learner. the teacher would give the learner a (fake) electric shock for each wrong answer to a memory task, increasing the shocks each time up to 450 volts.

37 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what were the baseline findings?

65% delivered the maximum shock of 450 volts, all went to at least 300 volts. observations - sweating, distress, trembling, biting lips, 3 had seizures

38 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what % was predicted to reach 450 volts, what % said they were glad to have participated and when were they debriefed?

predicted that 3% would reach 450v (65% did), 84% said they were glad to have participated, and they were debriefed at the end and assured that their behaviour was entirely normal

39 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - what conclusions can be made from the baseline study?

German people are not 'different' and there are situational factors that encourage obedience.

40 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - issues of informed consent?

deceived - thought it was a memory study, learner was a confederate, the lots were rigged when picking the roles

41 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - issues with the right to withdraw?

practically no right to withdraw - given prods of progressive assertiveness when they hesitated: "please continue", "the experiment requires you to continue", "it is absolutley essential that you continue", "you have no other choice you must go on"

42 of 98

Milgram's obedience study - issues with protection from harm?

stress of giving the shocks and of finding out things about themselves that are distressing

43 of 98

who studied situational variables affecting obedience and when?

Milgram in 1963

44 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - how did proximity affect obedience?

teacher and learner in same room - obedience fell to 40%, teacher forcing learner's hand onto shock plate - obedience fell to 30%, instructions given by telephone - obedience fell to 20.5%

45 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - why did proximity affect obedience?

they could psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions

46 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - how did location affect obedience?

conducted in a rundown office block rather than Yale university - obedience fell to 47.5%

47 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - why did location affect obedience?

the university environment gave the study legitimacy and authority. here, participants perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected

48 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - how did uniform affect obedience?

experimenter in a lab coat replaced with a 'member of public' in everyday clothes - obedience fell to 20%

49 of 98

Situational variables affecting obedience - why did uniform affect obedience?

uniforms encourage obedience as they are widely recognised symbols of authority. We accept someone in a uniform as entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate

50 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - what is an agentic state?

a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure ie. as their agent

51 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - what is an autonomous state?

the opposite of being in an agentic state. This state is self-regulatory. We behave according to our own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for our own actions.

52 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - define agentic shift

a cognitive shift from being in an autonomous state (our normal state) to being in an agentic state where we see ourselves as being a agent of someone else. We shift back when the legitimate authority stops.

53 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - what are binding factors?

aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain they are feeling. This is what keeps them in the agentic state.

54 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - define legitimacy of authority

an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. the authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy

55 of 98

Situational explanations of obedience - what is a social hierarchy?

people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. The authority these positions yield is legitimate as it is agreed by society. Those lower in social hierarchies will obey those higher in the social hierarchy.

56 of 98

who studied the authoritarian personality and when?

Adorno et al. in 1950

57 of 98

The authoritarian personality - define authoritarian personality

a type of personality defined by Adorno as being especially susceptible to obeying authority. they are submissive to authority and dismissive of inferiors.

58 of 98

The authoritarian personality - what are those with an authoritarian personality like?

they have extreme respect for authority and obedience to it, view society as 'weaker' than it once was and in need of stronger, powerful leaders to enforce traditional values, they have an inflexible outlook, they show contempt for inferiors

59 of 98

The authoritarian personality - how is an authoritarian personality fromed?

Adorno believes that childhood experiences of harsh parenting and conditional love create resentment and hostility in a child. they repress these feelings as they cannot express them to parents causing their fears to be displaced onto inferiors

60 of 98

The authoritarian personality - what was Adorno et al.'s procedure to test the authoritarian personality?

he studied 200 white middle-class Americans' unconscious attitudes towards racial groups using a questionnaire called the F-scale. they would say whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements

61 of 98

The authoritarian personality - what were the findings of Adorno et al.'s study?

high scores on the F-scale linked with: identification with the strong, contempt of the weak, deference and servility of those of higher status and black and white thinking

62 of 98

Resistance to social influence - define this

the ability to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority

63 of 98

Resistance to social influence - define social support

the presence of people who resist pressures to conform or obey can help others do the same. these people act as models to show others that resistance to social influence is possible.

64 of 98

Resistance to social influence - how can social support help you resist conformity?

it breaks the unanimous position of the majority, raises the possibility that there are other ways of thinking or responding, provides them with an assessment of reality that makes them feel more confident and better able to stand up to the majority

65 of 98

Resistance to social influence - how can social support help you resist obedience?

the other person's disobedience acts as a model of dissent for the participant to copy. This frees them to act from their own conscience. The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.

66 of 98

Resistance to social influence - who proposed the locus of control and when?

Rotter in 1966

67 of 98

Resistance to social influence - define locus of control

people differ in their belief about whether the outcomes of their actions are dependent on what they do (internal LOC) or on events outside their personal control (external LOC)

68 of 98

Resistance to social influence - define internal locus of control

individuals who tend to believe that they are responsible for their behaviour and experience, not external forces.

69 of 98

Resistance to social influence - define external locus of control

individuals who tend to believe that their behaviour and experience is caused by events outside their control

70 of 98

Resistance to social influence - how does you locus of control affect your ability to resist social influence?

those with a high internal locus of control are more able to resist social influence as they tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs. They're more self-confident, achievement oriented, more intelligent and have less need for social approval

71 of 98

Minority influence - who studied this and when?

Moscovici et al. in 1969

72 of 98

Minority influence - define this

a foem of social influence in which a minority of people influence others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.

73 of 98

Minority influence - how many participants and confederates were involved in Moscovici's study?

4 participants and 2 confederates

74 of 98

Minority influence - what did Moscovici ask his participants to do (initially)?

he asked them to view a set of blue coloured slides that varied in intensity and then state whether the slides were blue or geen

75 of 98

Minority influence - what 3 conditions were in Moscovici's study?

control condition (6 participants, no confederates, named the slides blue throughout), consistent condition (confederates consistently called the blue slides green) and inconsistent condition (confederates called the slides green 2/3 of the trials)

76 of 98

Minority influence - how influential was the consistent minority in Moscovici's study?

the consistent minority influenced the participants to say green over 8%of the time

77 of 98

Minority influence - how influential was the inconsistent minority in Moscovici's study?

the inconsistent minority exerted very little influence and didn't differ significantly from the control group.

78 of 98

Minority influence - What did Moscovici ask the participants to do after they had viewed the slide?

they were all asked individually to sort 16 disks into blue or green. 10 of the colours were ambiguous.

79 of 98

Minority influence - what did Moscovici find when he asked the participants to sort the disks?

those from the consistent condition judged more of the discs to be green than those in the inconsistent condition.

80 of 98

Minority influence - what conclusions can be made from Moscovici's study?

it demonstrates that, although levels of conformity are nowhere near as great as with majority influence, a minority that is consistent is far more influential than an inconsistent one.

81 of 98

Minority influence - what 3 factors make a minority effective?

consistency, flexibility and commitment

82 of 98

Minority influence - what are the two types of consistency?

synchronic consistency (they're all saying the same thing) and diachronic consistency (they've been saying the same thing for some time now)

83 of 98

Minority influence - how does consistency make a minority effective?

causes the others to reassess the situation and consider the issue more carefully

84 of 98

Minority influence - how does flexibility make a minority effective?

minorities are typically powerless and so must negotiate their position with the majority rather than try to enforce it.

85 of 98

Minority influence - how does commitment make a minority effective?

this causes the majority to pay more attention and it shows that the minority truly believe what they're saying. (augmentation principle)

86 of 98

Minority influence - explain the process of change

when you hear something new you think more deeply about it, especially if the source is consistent, flexible and committed. Deeper processing is important in the process of conversion. Over time, the minority view the majority view

87 of 98

Social Change - define this

when whole societies, rather than just individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.

88 of 98

Social Change - what are the 6 lessons were can learn from minority influence research?

drawing attention, cognitive conflict/deeper processing, consistency, the augmentation principle, the snowball effect and social cryptomnesia

89 of 98

Social Change - how does drawing attention help social change?

it draws the majority's attention to an issue

90 of 98

Social Change - how does cognitive conflict help social change?

the majority are conflicted about what they believe making them think more deeply

91 of 98

Social Change - how does consistency help social change?

all within the minority hold the same beliefs over time

92 of 98

Social Change - how does the Augmentation principle help social change?

this means that the minority appears willing to suffer for their views, showing them as committed and so taken more seriously

93 of 98

Social Change - how does the snowball effect help social change?

the effect starts small but gradually leads to wide-scale social change

94 of 98

Social Change - how does social cryptomnesia help social change??

people have a memory that change has occurred but don't remember how it happened

95 of 98

Social Change - what lessons can we learn from conformity research?

a dissenting peer or confederate enables members of majority to also more away from the majority, and the social norms approach holds that if people perceive something to be the norm, they tend to alter their behaviour to fit that norm.

96 of 98

Social Change - what lessons can we learn from obedience research?

Milgram's research showed that disobedient role models in the variation where a confederate teacher refuses to give the shock, the rate of obedience plummeted. Zimbardo's research showed that social change can happen through gradual commitment

97 of 98

Social Change - define gradual commitment

once a small instruction is obeyed, it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one. people essentially 'drift' into a new kind of behaviour.

98 of 98

Get Revising

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: