AS Psychology Social Influence

Question	Answer
Normative social influence	Conform to be accepted
Informational social influence	Conform to be right
Compliance	Public view changed Private view the same
Identification	Public view changed due to social role Private view the same
Internalisation	Private and public view changed
Support for NSI AND ISI	Asch line experiment proves normative as 75% Conformed Lucas et al found greater conformity linked to incorrect maths questions when they were harder, proving ISI
Conformity?	Change in person behaviour or opinion due to real or imagined pressure from people or groups.
Asch's research on conformity	123 American students put into groups of 6-8 people, who were confederates. Then they were shown cards with lines on them and asked which matched the line they were given. The confedrates guessed right for a third of the trials and then on the last 12 critical trails they answered wrong, the naive participant conformed. at least 75% conformed once due to NSI.
Asch variations and explanations.	Groups size, he found that even with just a group of three the participants still would conform. Unanimity: when a non conforming confedrate was in the room the conformity reduced by a quarter. Task difficulty, when increased led to more conformity (ISI)
Asch research evaluated	Perrin and spencer related the study with engineering students in the UK and found only one person conformed. This could be as they were engineers but it's more likely to be that when as he performed his research American was very conformist and this means the study is not constant across time Demand characteristics from participants Limited application to real life as only men were tested and only individuals to cultured Americans, unlike collectivist cultures like China.
Zimbardo and Stanford prison.	Do prisoners behave badly because of the situation or their personality? after setting up a mock prison and picking emotionally stable people from volunteers to become prisoners and guards. They heightened the realism by strip searching and arresting prisoners. The guards had uniforms and there roles were established with ultimate power. They found they guards behavior towards prisoners threatened their health. it stopped in 6 days and the prisoners were emotionally damaged and shown anxiety and tension. One went on a hunger strike. The situation does affect the way we behave.
SPE evaluated	Control over variables, increases internal validity as they had o much control Ethical issues - no consent to be arrested from home. When they asked to be released they was told they couldn't. Lack of realism,. its been argued that the participants were role playing, zimbardo argued this with quantitative data that 90% of conversation was about prison life.
Milgram's study	40 males gathered through newspapers and leaflets. They went into a rigged draw so the participant would be a teacher and the confederate would be a learner. The learner was then shocked by the teacher every time he got a question wrong and the voltage increased. After 315 volts when the learner didn't respond the teacher looked at the experimenter for guidance, he gave the teacher 4 prods until he carried on.
Milgrams findings	65% continued to 450 volts. no one stropped below 300 volts the teachers shown extreme tension. This proves that people obey to authoritative figures.
Milgram Evaluate	Low internal validity - Orne and Holland argued that the teachers guessed that the shocks were fake and then carried on. Perry also backs this up as she listen to tapes of the participants doubting it. Sheridan and King however conflicts this as they replicated the study but the shocks were real on a puppy. 100% females did the shock but only 54% of males did it. Ethical issues of being deceived. good external validity - it's set up is realistic, with teacher and experimenter. Other research backs this up including from Hofling which the nurses were asked to give a fatal drug to patients 20/21 obeyed.
Situational variables	Proximity Location Uniform
Proximity	1. Teacher and learner in same room 65 to 40 percent 2. Learner forced onto chair 65 to 30 3. Instructions via telephone 65 to 20.5
Location	He changed the location from a university to a run down building, obedience dropped from 65 to 47.5
Uniform	The experimenter had to leave and a person dressed in causal clothes came in and started the experiment. Obedience dropped from 65% to 20%
Situational variables evaluated.	Bickman in New York City. 3 confederates dressed in outfits; security guard, jacket and tie and milkman. after they asked the public to do task they were more likely to do it for the security guard proving uniform produces obedience. Miranda et al studied this cross culturally in spain and found the same results, but this is still a western country. Lack of internal validity via Orne and Holland as the public member taking over experimenter may have lead to participant guessing it was fake.
Social Psychological - Agentic Shift	Milhgram proposed the agentic shift the person goes from autonomous state through an agentic shift to agentic state.
Autonomous state	Where the person behaves on their own morals and they feel responsible for their actions
Agentic state	The person perceives someone else as a figure of authority if they are higher in the heirachy than them. They still have moral strain but they can pass shift on their actions to the authoritative figure.
Legitimacy and destructive authority	Legitimate authority is authority accepted by society like the police. Destructive authority is where this authority comes destructive like Hitler killing the Jews.
Social Psychological evaluated.	Blass and shmitt showed a clip of Milgrams study to students and asked them who was to blame for the shocks. They blamed the experimenter rather than the teacher. They blamed legitimate authority and the authoritative scientist being to blame due to him being higher in the heirachy. Limited explanation, doesn't explain why some people didn't obey. Hoflings study with the nurses found that the nurses didn't show anxiety when handing over responsibility to doctors proving that the agentic shift can only be explained in some situations Cultural differences are explained with the agentic shift, such as Kilman and Mann found that only 16% Australian went to 450 volts and 85% of Germans went to 450. Showing some cultures accept legitimate authority more.
Dispositional explanations method	Adorno investigated 2000 white Americans and their unconscious attitudes to racial groups. They developed the F-scale to measure this.
Findings of dispositional explanations	People with authoritarian learning (who scored high on the F scale) identified with strong people and were disrespectful of the weak. They were conscious of their own status and treated people higher than them with respect. there was a high correlation between authoritarianism and prejudiced. People who have authoritarian characterstics tend to be more obedient.
Origins of Authoritarian personalities.	He concluded that the personality originated in childhood after their parents treated them with conditional love and the were brought up with strict rules. There resentment to parents was displaced onto people lower than them when they were adults.
Dispositional factors evaluated	Milgram and elms supports it as they conducted interviews with high F scalers, They found a correlation between obedience and authoritarian personality. But this is only a correction and they could both be caused by third factors so its impossible to draw a conclusion just from this. Method flaws as only men used and Americans, individualist country. Questionnaire may not be honest.
Resistance to social influence; Social support in conformity	Pressure to conform can be lifted by social support. If another person doesn't conform this encourages us to follow our own conscious. Support by Allen + Levite they found that conformity decreased when a dissenter was added to an Asch replica study. Even when the non conformer was in thick glasses and couldn't see properly this still happened.
Resistance to social influence; social support in obedience.	Gamson et al put groups of 9 participants in for gathering evidence to get a petrol manager sacked. 88% didn't allow the evidence go to court. showing obedience is less in groups due to social support.
Locus of control	Rotter made LOC its a continuum measurement. There are internals who think they are in control of your life. There are externals who believe that they don't control there life and what will be will be.
Why do people with high internal LOC resist social influence?	Because - They look for info that is useful to them and don't rely on others info They are achievement orientated and more likely to bring social change. Less concerned with social acceptance.
LOC evaluated	Holland supported LOC as they replicated Milgrams study and found 37% of internals didn't continue to vital shock but only 23% of externals didn't continue. this increased the validity of LOC. Twenge et al went against the LOC as they studied 40 years of data and analysed it. They found obedience has dropped but more people are considered externals which conflicts the LOC, as this would say more externals means more obedience.
Minority Influence	When a small group or person ( a minority) influence the majority view to change.
Why are people more likely to conform to minority influence.	Consistency commitment flexibility

Next up

AS Psychology Social Influence

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by baileyharrison18 about 8 years ago