Social Influence

?
Normative social influence (explanation)
to be liked (compliance)
1 of 34
Informational social influence (explanation)
to be right (internalisation)
2 of 34
Compliance (type of conform)
publicly (not private), short-term, gain approval e.g. supporting a certain team
3 of 34
Internalisation (type of conform)
public + private, long-term, genuine agreement, adoption of the majorities beliefs e.g. religious conversion
4 of 34
Identification (type of conform)
public + private, temporary, gain acceptance from group, e.g. adapting behaviour in army but eventually adopting different once when left
5 of 34
Sherif (Informational + internalisation)
lab, repeated measures, 1) p's asked to judge how far a light had moved several times, 2) groups of three + recall their estimation aloud, 3) repeat step one (auto kinetic effect), 1) = stable estimates, 2) = group norm, 3) = maintain group norm
6 of 34
(continued) Sherif
ambiguous situation = look to others for help, informational, continued to use the groups estimate = internalisation. (evaluation) applications, high validity, avoid researcher imposition but lacks ecological validity
7 of 34
Asch (normative + compliance)
groups of 7,8,9, 20 trials each, confeds gave wrong answer on 12/18 trials, 26% didn't conform at all, 5% conformed every time, 74% conformed at least once, 32% = average conformity rate
8 of 34
(continued) Asch
please experimenter, doubted eyesight, didn't want to look different. (evaluation) applications, unethical, all-male, individual differences
9 of 34
Asch (second version of study) GROUP SIZE
either 1,2,3,4,8,10 or 15 confeds. 3% = 1 confed, 13% = two confeds, 3 confeds = 33% (didn't increase much more). larger the group the less the conformity.
10 of 34
Asch (second version of study) ANANIMITY
1 confed gave right answer = conformity dropped to 5.5%, when the confed gave a wrong a different but still wrong answer to the P + the other confeds, the conformity dropped, support for deviating from norm
11 of 34
Asch (second version of study) DIFFICULTY
informational influence, more likely to conform if they don't know the answer or way of behaving
12 of 34
Zimbardo's research (identification)
dispositional Vs situational, 21 males - either prisoner or guard, Stanford Uni, dehumanised (prisoners), deinviduated (guards), guards became sadistic, prisoners became humiliated + stressed, called to a halt after 6 days
13 of 34
Zimbardo's research (continued)
situational hyp, adopted behaviours associated with roles, social roles leads different behaviours to usual, applications, unethical, individual differences, social roles change (Reicher + Haslam)
14 of 34
Milgram (obedience)
electric shock, 40 males, introduced to the 'teacher' (confed), 15-450 volts, 40 obeyed up to 300V, 65% went to 450V, 35% stopped before 450V, nervousness + tension, 3 had seizures, likely to follow orders from authority due to up-bringing
15 of 34
Milgram (continued)
unethical, socially sensitive to the holocaust, applications, reliability
16 of 34
Agentic state (obedience)
able to pass responsibility onto another person, 'agent' of the authority figure e.g. Milligram's study, real world example - 'I was following orders', educate people to recognise the dangers of blind obedience
17 of 34
Legitimate authority (obedience)
obey those with authority, control, comes from status conveyed by uniform or position in family structure. Milligram - moved to seedy office = obedience rate dropped by 20%
18 of 34
Proximity (situational variable) Milgram
how close to consequences, further away = more able to avoid consequences, pressure to obey the experimenter is less if they aren't in same room. Teacher + learner in same room obedience = 40%, teacher force hand on electrode = 30%
19 of 34
Location (situational variable) Milgram
legitimacy of authority figure, prestigious institution = university, moved to seedy office + just member of the public - obedience dropped 20%
20 of 34
Uniform (situational variable)
higher perception of authority, Bickman - 92% pedestrians agreed to give money to traffic warden when in uniform, only 49% when in normal clothes. Milligram - white lab coat increased obedience
21 of 34
Authoritarian personality (dispositional factors in obedience)
Adorno, 2000 american students, political beliefs + childhood experiences, strict parents = very obedient, quick to learn + grow up + have a strong respect for authority, need for power + toughness, hostile + angry towards parents - put on others
22 of 34
(continued) Authoritarian personality (dispositional factors in obedience)
Elms + milgram - highly obedient p's scored higher on the Fascist scale than the less obedient ones- doesn't show cause + effect, could be uniform + location, researcher bias - assumes certain people are obedient
23 of 34
Social support (resistance to SI)
less likely to obey if they have support for non-obedient behaviour, others willing to remain independent, Milgram - two disobedient confess - obedience in the P dropped to 10%, when there were two obedient confeds it rose to 92.5%
24 of 34
Locus of control (resistance to SI)
high internal locus - influence others, assume they'll be successful, their behaviour has large impacts, engage in political behaviour. High external locus - powerful others, fate and chance
25 of 34
evidence of locus of control
Elms + Milgram - background of disobedient p's - high internal locus, scored higher on a scale that measured their sense of social responsibility. Oliver + Oliner - non-jewish people - those who helped rescue jews had a higher internal locus
26 of 34
evaluation of locus of control
Oliner + Oliner - effects of locus of control on SI happens in real life not just in a lab - ecological validity, however other personality factors may be more important - lacks reliability (williams + warchals)
27 of 34
Minority influence
consistency, act out of principles, flexible, make sacrifices, similar to the majority, similar norms
28 of 34
Minority influence - Moscovici et al
blue-green, when the consistent minority (2 confeds) said all 36 blue slides were green, the conformity rate of the p's was 8.42%, when they were inconsistent only 1.25% of p's said green, 1/3 of all p's said green at least once
29 of 34
Moscovici et al (continued)
minorities can influence but not all the time, lab experiment, females only, Nemeth - flexibility also important - when a confed changed his price the majority agreed with him
30 of 34
social influence (social change) COMPLIANCE Vs INTERNALISATON
moscovici - maj influence results in compliance - normative SC, min influence results in internalisation - informational SC
31 of 34
social influence (social change) SOCIAL CRYPTOAMNESIA
maj take on the views of the min but forget where they came from - don't want to be associated
32 of 34
social influence (social change) SNOWBALL EFFECT
more the min group grows, more influential it becomes
33 of 34
social influence (social change) AUGMENTATION PRINCIPLE
if min are willing to sacrifice for their views - more committed - taken more seriously e.g. suffragettes
34 of 34

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

to be right (internalisation)

Back

Informational social influence (explanation)

Card 3

Front

publicly (not private), short-term, gain approval e.g. supporting a certain team

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

public + private, long-term, genuine agreement, adoption of the majorities beliefs e.g. religious conversion

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

public + private, temporary, gain acceptance from group, e.g. adapting behaviour in army but eventually adopting different once when left

Back

Preview of the back 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 »