Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Internalisation |
When a person genuinely accepts group norms. This is a private and public change. |
|
|
|
Identification |
Publicly changing opinions to agree with a group you want to become part of. |
|
|
|
Compliance |
Involves "going along with others in public but privately not changing opinions" . |
|
|
|
ISI |
Informational Social Influence - the desire to be right. Most likely in situations with ambiguity, when decisions need making quickly or when the group involves an expert. |
|
|
|
NSI |
Normative Social Influence - the desire to be liked. Most likely to happen in unfamiliar situations, with known people or stressful situations. |
|
|
|
Strength of ISI |
Research support Lucas et Al asked student to give answers to increasingly difficult maths questions. There was more conformity on harder questions especially with those with poor maths skills. People conform in situations where they don't know the right answer and assume others know better. |
Lucas et Al - maths questions |
|
|
Limitation of ISI |
Individual differences Perrin and Spencer found less conformity when they tested engineering students. Perrin and Spencer found less conformity when they tested engineering students. People who are knowledgeable or confident are less likely to conform. Therefore the are differences in how individuals will respond. People who are knowledgeable or confident are less likely to conform. Therefore the are differences in how individuals will respond. |
Asch - student conformity rates |
|
|
Strength of NSI |
Research support Asch found some ppts to say they were self-conscious of giving the right answer and afraid of disapproval. When asked to right down answers conformity fell to 12.5% This supports the ppts conforming from nsi |
Asch - writing variation |
|
|
Limitation of NSI |
Individual differences McGhee and Teevan found people who care about being liked (nAffiliators) were more likely to conform Their desire to be liked affects whether they will conform. |
nAffiliators |
|
|
Describe Asch's 1951 original study |
123 American male students Each tested individually with a group of 6-8 confederates. The ppts was always seated 2nd to last. Asked to identified matching line lengths. On the 12/18 critical trials the confederates gave the wrong answer. Ppts gave wrong answer 36.8% 25% never gave a wrong answer Most ppts said they conformed to avoid rejection but kept their private opinions. |
|
|
|
Describe Asch's 1955 variations |
Group size: confederates varied between 1 and 5 With 2 confederates conformity at 13.6%, 3 at 31.8% after that made little difference Unanimity: a truthful or dissenting but wrong confederate Dissenting confederate, whether right or not, reduced conformity. Task difficulty: made lines harder to judge Conformity increased when task was more difficult.
|
|
|
|
3 evaluations of Asch's conformity research |
Limitation - child of the time Perrin and Spencer found just 1 conforming response from 396 engineering student trials. The Asch affect is not time consistent and is not an enduring feature of human behavior. Limitation - artificial materials Ppts knew they were in a study so might have demand characteristics Plus the task was trivial so their was no reason not to conform Finding don't generalise to everyday situations Limitation - cultural differences Asch tested those from an individualist culture whereas Smith and Bond suggest higher conformity in collectivist cultures Therefore his findings are restricted to male americans |
|
|
|
Describe the Stanford prison experiment |
24 emotionally stable students randomly assigned to guard or prisoner. Prisoners were arrested at home, strip searched and issued a uniform and number. Guards in shifts of 3 De-individualisation: numbers instead of names and guards given their own uniform with mirrored shades. The guards were told they had complete power over the prisoners. After 2days the prisoners rebelled and were suppressed with fire extinguishers. After the rebellion prisoners became more subdued and anxious, 3 were released early for psychological disturbance. One prisoner was put in the hole after going on hunger strike. The study was stopped after 6 days instead of 14. |
|
|
|
Evaluate the stanford prison experiment |
Strength - variable control Emotionally stable ppts we're randomly assigned to roles Therefore the study has high internal validity Limitation - lack of realism Some suggest ppts were acting and one guard based his character from the film cool hand luke. However zimbardo found 90% of prisoners conversations were about prison life so the simulation seemed real to them. Limitation - ethical issues Zimbardo was both lead researcher and prison superintendent. He spoke to a prisoner who wanted to leave as a superintendent not a researcher. This limited his ability to protect the ppts |
|
|
|
Describe Milgram's 1963 research |
40 male ppts through postal flyers A confederate was always the learner while the ppts was the teacher and another confederate was the experimenter. The learner was in another room with attached electrodes. The ppts gave him a shock after getting a Memory question wrong but these were fake shocks Shocks were 15v to 450v and at 300 the learner hit the wall and gave no response to the next question but hitting the wall again.
Experiment had 4 prods: "please Continue" to "you have no other choice you must continue"
No ppts stopped below 300v 12.5% stopped at 300 65% continued to 450v
Ppts were then debriefed and assured their behaviour was normal. 84% were glad to have participated. |
|
|
|
Evaluated Milgram's original 1963 study |
Strength - good external validity Milgram argued the experimenter-ppts relationship reflected IRL authority Nurses were Found to obey unjustified doctor demand 21/22 times This means that the results can be generalised Strength - replication support This experiment has been replicated by several TV shows finding around 80%to continue to 450v with similar behaviours Limitation - low internal validity Suggested that ppts guessed shocks were not real. However in a repetition with real shocks to a puppy, 75% gave what they thought were fatal shocks. |
|
|
|
Milgram's situational variables |
Proximity: Same room - conformity at 40% Touch - 30% Remote-instruction by experimenter - 20.5% Location: Run-down office - 47.5% Uniform: Ordinary member of public as experimenter - 20% |
|
|
|
Evaluated Milgram's situational variations |
Strength - research support In another study ppts we're twice as likely to obey a security guard as a guy in jacket and tie Strength - variable control Milgram only altered 1 variable at a time and the study was replicated with over 1000 ppts Limitation - lack internal validity Suggested that ppts more likely to guess procedure was fake Unclear whether demand characteristics were invloved |
|
|
|
Agentic state |
When a person acts for another and feels no personal responsibility for their actions |
|
|
|
Autonomous state |
When a person acts for themselves |
|
|
|
Binding factors |
Factor that keep a person in an agentic state to reduce moral strain. Such a shifting responsibility or denying damage |
|
|
|
Legitimacy of authority |
Some people have accepted authority over others e.g. Teachers over students |
|
|
|
Evaluate agentic state |
Strength - research support In Milgram's research students blamed the experimenter of the ppts as he had legitimate authority Strength - cultural support Only 16% of Australians went to 450v whereas 85% of Germans did. These cross cultural finding increase the external validity of the explanation Limitation - cannot account for nazis Soldiers shot Polish civvies even though they were not directly ordered to Challenges because the soldiers were not powerless to obey |
|
|
|
Reasons for resistance to social influence |
Social support - obedience reduced by dissenting peer Shown by Asch's research Locus of control - internal/external |
|
|
|
What 3 processes are needed for minority influence to cause internalisation? |
Consistency Commitment Flexibility |
|
|
|
Synchronic consistency |
People in minority all saying same thing |
|
|
|
Diachronic consistency |
Saying same thing for some time |
|
|
|
Augmentation principle |
Risk shows commitment so people pay more attention |
|
|
|
Snowball affect |
The more people get converted the faster the conversion rste |
|
|
|
Describe Moscovici's 1969 study |
6 people viewed a set of 36 slides stating if they were blue or green 1- confederates consistently said green 8.4%gave wrong answer at least once 2- confederates were inconsistent Conformity at 1.25% 3- no confederates Wrong colour c. 25% |
|
