social influence

HideShow resource information
Internalisation
Private and public acceptance of group norms.
1 of 67
Identification
Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with.
2 of 67
Compliance
Go along with group publicly but no private change.
3 of 67
Information social influence
Conform to be right and assume others know better than us.
4 of 67
Normative social influence
Conform to be liked or accepted by group
5 of 67
Research support for ISI
There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than the easier ones.
6 of 67
Individual differences in ISI
ISI does not affect everyone's behaviour in the same way Asch found out that students were less conformist (28%) than other participants ( 37%).
7 of 67
Research support for NSI
Asch found that many of his participants went along with a clearly wrong answer. They said they felt self conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval
8 of 67
Individual differences in NSI
nAffilators want to be liked more
9 of 67
Asch's Procedure
Confederates deliberately gave wrong answers to see if participants would conform
10 of 67
Asch's findings
Naive participants conformed on 36.8% trials. 25% never conformed
11 of 67
Asch's variations Group size
Asch increased the size of the group by adding more confederates, conformity increased with group size.
12 of 67
Asch's variations Unanimity
The majority was unanimous when all the confederates selected the same comparison lines. This produced the greatest degree of conformity in the naive participants.
13 of 67
Asch's variations Task difficulty
Its more difficult when it becomes harder to work out the correct answer. conformity increases because naive participants assume that the majority is more likely to be correct.
14 of 67
Asch's Evaluation : A child of it time
Perin and Spencer found less conformity in 1980 than 1950s
15 of 67
Asch's Evaluation : Artificial situation and task
Demand characteristics meant participants just played along with trivial task
16 of 67
Asch's Evaluation: Limited application of findings
Asch's research only conducted on American men
17 of 67
Zimbardo's procedure
Mock prison with student randomly assigned as guards or prisoners
18 of 67
Zimbardo's Findings
Guards became increasing brutal, prisoners increasingly withdrawn and depressed.
19 of 67
Zimabardo's conclusion
Participant conformed to their roles as guards or prisoners
20 of 67
Zimbardo Evaluation: control
Random assignment to roles increased internal validity
21 of 67
Zimbardo Evaluation: Lack of realism
Participants were play acting their roles according to media - derived stereotypes.
22 of 67
Zimbardo Evaluation: dispositional influences
Only one third of guards were brutal so conclusions exaggerated.
23 of 67
Milgram's procedure
Participant gave fake electric shcks to a learner in obedience to instructions from the experimenter.
24 of 67
Milgram's findings
65% gave highest shock of 450v. 100% gave shocks up to 300v. many showed signs of anxiety
25 of 67
Milgram's Evaluation : low internal validity
Participants realised shocks were fake but replication with real shocks got similar results
26 of 67
Milgram's Evaluation: Good external validity
Findings generalise to other situation such as hospital wards
27 of 67
Milgram's Evaluation: supporting replication
Game of death found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour to Milgram's participants
28 of 67
Agentic state
Someone who acts for or in place of another
29 of 67
Autonomous state
When the person is independent. So a person in an autonomous state takes responsibility for their own actions they behave according to their own principles.
30 of 67
Agentic shift
Switching between agentic state and autonomous state
31 of 67
Binding factors
Allow individual to ignore the damaging effects of their obedient behaviour
32 of 67
Evaluation of agentic state
Blass and Schmitt found that people do blame the legitimate authority for the participant's behaviour.
33 of 67
Evaluation of agentic state
A limited explanation cannot explain why some of milgrams participants disobeyed.
34 of 67
Legitmacy of authority
Created by hierarchical nature of society
35 of 67
Destructive authority
Problems arise for example Hitler
36 of 67
Evaluation of Legitimacy of authority
cultural differences explains obedience in different cultures because reflects different social hierarchies
37 of 67
The authoritarian personality procedure
Adorno et al. Used F scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other racial group
38 of 67
The authoritarian personality findings
People with authoritarian personalities identify with the strong and have fixed cognitive style
39 of 67
Authoritarian characteristics
Extreme respect for authority and obedience
40 of 67
Origin of the authoritarian personality
Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced
41 of 67
Evaluation of dispositional explanations : research support
some of milgrams obedient participants had authoritarian personalities.
42 of 67
Evaluation of dispositional explanations : Limited explanation
cant explain t=increase in obedience across a whole culture better explanation is social identity theory
43 of 67
Evaluation of dispositional explanations : political bias
equated authoritarian personality with right wing ideology and ignores extreme left wing authoritarianism.
44 of 67
Resistance to social influence: social support conformity
Reduced by presence of dissenters from the group
45 of 67
Resistance to social influence: social support obedience
Decreases in presence of disobedient per who acts as a model to follow.
46 of 67
Evaluation Resistance to social influence: Research support
conformity decreases when one person dissent even if they are not credible
47 of 67
Evaluation Resistance to social influence: Research support
Obedience drops when disobedient role models are present
48 of 67
Locus of control
is sense of what directs events in our lives
49 of 67
Continuum
High internal at one end and high external at the other
50 of 67
Resistance to social influence
people with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressure to conform or obey
51 of 67
Evaluation of Locus of control: research support
internal less likely to fully obey in milgram type procedure
52 of 67
Evaluation of Locus of control: contradictory research
people have become more external and more disobedient recently hard for LOC to explain
53 of 67
Minority influence: consistency
if the minority is consistent this attracts the attention of the majority over time
54 of 67
Minority influence: commitment
Augmentation principle- personal sacrifices shows commitment and attract attention
55 of 67
Minority influence: flexibility
minority more convincing if they accept some counter argument
56 of 67
Minority influence: process of change
Above factors make majority think more deeply about issues.
57 of 67
Minority influence: process of change snowball effect
Minority views gathers momentum until it becomes majority influence
58 of 67
Evaluation Minority influence: Research support for consistency
Moscovici's blue green slides and wood et al meta analysis
59 of 67
Evaluation Minority influence: Research support for depth of thought
Minority views have longer effect because they are deeply processesd
60 of 67
Evaluation Minority influence: artificial task
task often trivial so tell us little about real life influence
61 of 67
Social change - The special role of minority influence
Minority influence is powerful force for innovation and social change
62 of 67
social change - lessons from conformity research
Normative social influence can lead to social change by drawing attention to what majority is doing
63 of 67
Social change - Lesson from obedience research
Disobedient role models. gradual commitment is how obedience can lead to change
64 of 67
Evaluation social change : Research support
NSI valid explanation of social change
65 of 67
Evaluation social change: only indirectly effective
effects of minority influence are limited because they are indirect and appear later
66 of 67
Evaluation social change : role of deeper processing
it is majoirty views that are processed more deeply than minority views, challenging central feature of minority influence.
67 of 67

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Identification

Back

Change behaviour to be part of a group we identify with.

Card 3

Front

Compliance

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Information social influence

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Normative social influence

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 »