Social Influence evaluation

Created by: GemmaStone
Created on: 04-06-17 22:10

Kelman's types of conformity (compliance, internalisation and identification), inc. NSI and ISI

1. Change of view due to pressure or forgetting? 2. Schultz et al.-25% reduction towel use normative messages implications. 3. Wittenbrink and Henley- African American negative attitudes. 4. NSI unconscious? Nolan et al- energy use neighbours

1 of 9

Asch's conformity research (factors- unanimity, group size and task difficulty)

1. Replica studies (Perrin and Spencer) engineering 1 in 396. 2. dependent on situation, WIlliams and Sogon cost of dissent. 3. Cultural differences- conformity 'social glue' (Kitayama) collectivist. 25% vs 37%. 4. 67% non-conformity.

2 of 9

Zimbardo Stanford prison experiment

1. Ind diffs (Fromm)- 1/3 sadistic, 1/3 fair, 1/3 kind. 2. Banuazizi and Movahedi- appropriate not natural (schemas of beh.), demand characteristics. 3. Abu Ghraib prison 'natural consequence'. 4. BBC Reicher and Haslam, role reversal (SIT- Tajfel)

3 of 9

Obedience- Milgram's research

1. Doubters higher shocks, guess aims (Orne and Holland). 2. Ethical issues (harm)- extreme stress, seizures, guilt. Verbal prods. 3. External validity- Hofling et al 21/22 nurses obey dangerous doctor order. 4. French TV show replication- 80% 460v.

4 of 9

Factors affecting obedience (location, uniform and proximity)

1. Bushman uniform 72% police, 48% business. 2. Successful isolation of variables, unlikely confounded. 3. Miranda et al 90% obedience Spain, culturally relative. 4. Mandel 'alibi' offensive- element of free will.

5 of 9

Agentic state due to the perception of legitimate authority

1. Lifton, Staub- personality change (German doctors holocaust) not agents. 2. All humans social hierachy but some disobey. 3. Cultural diffs. Australia- 16%, Germany-85% (Kilham and Mann), socialisation. 4. Blass and Schmidt agree researcher resp.

6 of 9

Adorno- authoritarian personality (tested on F-scale)

1. Cannot explain whole populations- Tajfel SIT. 2. Qs same perspective (aquiescence), ints. knew which ps AP. 3. Christie and Jahoda: F-scale only measures right wing, entire pol.spectrum obed. 4. Correlational- issues in cause and effect.

7 of 9

Resisting social influence (social support and Rotter's locus of control)

1. Allen & Levine conformity thick glasses, not ISI but lack pressure. 2. Gamson et al obedience smear 29/33 refuse. 3. LOC support Holland 37% internals no 450v, 23% exts. 4. Twenge et al. low hist. val. bc increase in exts., but decrease in obed.

8 of 9

Minority influence (commitment, consistency, flexibility)- Moscovici et al.

1. Bashir et al. stereotypes offputting, more NSI than ISI, so CCF less imp. 2. Nolan et al. messages ref. neighbours reduce consump. 3. writing Moscovici more MI, reluctant to admit. 4. Artificial, lacks generalisability (campaign more imp. IRL).

9 of 9

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Asch's conformity research (factors- unanimity, group size and task difficulty)

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

Social Influence evaluation