Social Influence Flashcards
- Created by: millywhitehouse
- Created on: 23-12-20 13:58
AO1 Types of Conformity/Explanations for Conformit
Compliance - conforming to gain approval
Internalisation - conforming because of an acceptance of their views
Identification - accepting influence because of a desire to be associated with a group. Indentification has elements of compliance and internalisation
Normative social influence - conformity based on the desire for approval, more likely to occur when an individual believes they are under surveillance by the group
Informational social influence - based on an acceptance of information from others as evidence about reality, more likely if the situation is ambiguous or where others are experts
AO3 Types of Conformity/ Explanations for Conformi
Difficulties distinguishing between compliance and internalisation
Research support for normative influence e.g smoking take-up (Linkenbach and Perkins)
Research support for informational influence e.g attitudes about African Americans (Wittenbrink and Henley)
Nolan et al - people underestimate the impact of normative influence on their behaviour
Informational influence is moderated by type of task (Laughlin)
AO1 Variables Affecting Conformity: Key Study (Asc
Participants views lines of different lengths and compared them to a standard line.
Group contained confederates with participants answering second to last
Confederates gave the same wrong answer on 12 out of 18 trials
Conformity rate was approx 33%
Without confederates, participants made mistakes 1% of the time
Participants conformed to avoid disapproval
AO1 Variables Affecting Conformity
Group size - increased 30% with majority of 3 - Campbell and Fairey - group size has different effect depending on type of judgement and motivation
Unanimity of the majority - with one dissenter giving the right answer, conformity 5.5% - dissenter giving the wrong answer, conformity 9%
Difficulty of the task - if the correct answer less obvious, conformity was higher - Lucas et al - influence of the task difficulty moderated by individuals self efficacy
AO3 Variables Affecting Conformity
Asch's research a 'child of its time' (Perrin and Spencer)
We know very little about the effect of larger majority sizes on conformity levels
Independent behaviour rather than conformity - participants maintained their independence on two-thirds of trails
Unconvincing confederates - Mori and Arai overcame this problem. Similar results to Asch
Cultural differences in conformity - Smith et al found that conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures
AO1 Conformity of Social Roles: Stanford Prison Ex
Male volunteers assigned roles of either prisoners or guards
Prisoners referred to by numbers only, guards given uniforms and power to make rules
Guards became tyrannical and abusive with the prisoners
Prisoners conformed to their role with some showing extreme reactions of crying and rage
AO1 Conformity of Social Roles: BBC Prison Study
Male volunteers, matched on social and clinical measures, assigned roles of prisoners or guards
Unlike SPE, neither guards nor prisoners conformed to their assigned roles
Prisoners worked collectively to challenge authority of the guards, resulting in power shift
AO3 Conformity to Social Roles
Conformity to roles is not automatic - -Haslam and Reicher argue the guards chose how to behave, rather than blindly conforming to a social role
Banuazizi and Movahedi argue that participants behaviour in SPE was a response to power demand characteristics
Were the studies ethical? Zimbardo's study followed ethical guidelines but participants still suffered, greater steps to minimise potential harm to participants in the BBC study
The SPE and its relevance to Abu Ghraib - similarities between SPE and the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib
Zimbardo claims unthinking conformity can lead to a drift into tyranny - disputed by Reicher and Haslam
Research on Obedience: Key Study (Milgrim 1963)
40 volunteer participants in each condition
Real participants acted as 'teacher', confederate as 'learner'
Teacher administered shock levels up to 450v
65% went up to maximum
All participants went to 300v (enough to kill a person)
Situational Factors in Obedience
Proximity - obedience levels decreased with increasing proximity
Location - obedience levels dropped to 48% in lower-status setting
The power of uniform - people more likely to obey someone in a uniform (Bushman)
AO3 Research on Obedience
Ethical issues due to deception and lack of informed consent
Internal validity - Orne and Holland claim many participants saw through deception
Indiviual differences - 8/9 replications found no gender differences in obedience (Blass)
External validity - the obedience alibi (Mandel)
Historical validity - no relationship between year of study and obedience level (Blass)
AO1 Explanations for Obedience: The Agentic State
Person acts as an agent to carry out another persons wishes
Binding factors operate to maintain obedience e.g social etiquette
Demonstrated in actions at My Lai
AO1 Explanations for Obedience: Legitimacy of Auth
Person must perceive an individual in a position of social control
People accept definitions of a situation offered by legitimate authority figure
Legitimate commands arise from institutions e.g the university or the military
AO3 Explanations for Obedience
The agentic state does not explain gradual transitions found in Nazi doctors
Agentic state or cruelty?
Legitimacy can serve as the basis for justifying harm to others
Agentic shift is a common response when a person loses self control (Fennis and Aarts)
Tarrow provides support for power of legitimate authority in aircraft cockpits
AO1 The Authoritarian Personality
People scoring high on F scale raised within authoritarian family background (Adorno et al)
RWA - conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression (Altemeyer)
The Authoritarian Personality: Key Study (Elms and
20 'obedient' participants and 20 'defiant' participants
Completed MMPI and F scale, asked open ended questions
Little difference between obedience and defiant participants on MMPI
Higher levels of authoritarianism in obedient participants
Obedient participants reported being less close to fathers
AO3 The Authoritarian Personality
Correlation between RWA scores and maximum voltage shock (Dambrun and Vatine)
Explanations based on authoritarianism lack flexibility
Many fully obedient participants had good relationships with their parents
Education mya determine authoritarianism and obedience (Middendorp and Meloen)
Left-wing views associated with lower levels of obedience (Begue et al)
AO1 Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support
Presence of social support enables individual to resist conformity (Asch)
Social support breaks unanimity and provides an independent assessment of reality
Disobedient peers act as role models
Obedience rates dropped to 10% when two confederates defied experimenter (Milgram)
AO1 Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Contr
Internal LOC = greater independence and less reliance on the opinions of others
External LOC = more passive attitude and greater acceptance of the influence of others
High internals less vulnerable to influence and better able to resist coercion (Hutchins and Etsey)
AO3 Resistance to Social Influence
Social support in conformity studies more effective when it was from first responder in group
Support may not have to be valid to be effective (Allen and Levine)
Locus of control related to normative but not informational influence (Spector)
Substantial increase in externality since 1960 (Twenge et al)
The Rosenstrasse protest showed power of social support
People high in externality more easily persuaded and more likely to conform (Avtgis)
AO1 Minority Influence
Minority influence effective with a consistent committed and flexible style
Wood et al - minorities who were especially consistent were more influential
Commitment important as it suggests certainty and confidence
Flexibility more effective at changing opinion than rigid arguments
Minority Influence: Key Study (Moscovi et al)
Groups of 4 naive participants and two confederates
Shown blue slides varying in intensity but confederates called them green
Group 1 confederates answered consistently, group 2 confederates answered inconsistently
Consistent minority influenced naive participants to say green on 8% of trails
Inconsistent minority exerted very little influence
AO3 Minority Influence
Research support for flexibilty (Nemeth and Brilmayer)
Real value of minority is that it 'opens the mind' (Nemeth)
Mackie argues that it is the majority that processes information more
Xie et al - percentage of committed opinion holders necessary to 'tip' the majority was 10%
But difficult to convince people of the value of dissent
AO1 Social Influence Processes In Social Change: M
Drawing attention to an issue
Minority creates a conflict between majority position and minority position
Minorities more influential when they express their views consistently
Augmentation principle - minorities more influential if they suffer for their views
Snowball effect - an initial small effect spreads more widely until it reaches a tipping point
AO1 Social Influence Processes In Social Change: M
If people perceive something as the norm, they alter their behaviour to fit that norm
Correcting misperceptions about 'actual' norms using social norms interventions
E.g most of us don't drink and drive campaign
Resulted in a drop of drink driving by 13%
AO3 Social Influence Processes in Social Change
Influence of majority more likely to be latent rather than direct
Being perceived as 'deviant' limits influence of minorities
Social norms interventions have their limitations - not all have led to social change e.g De long et al
Social norms interventions and the boomerang effect e.g Schultz et al with electricity usage
The Community Manifesto - overcame issues that typically limit the influence of minorities
Comments
No comments have yet been made