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;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Types of conformity |
Internalisation- conforming to the group because you accept its norms- you agree privately as well as publicly Identification- confirming to the group because we value it and are prepared to change views to be a part of it Compliance- Superficial agreement with group/ going along with it publicly but holding a different view privately ISI- agreeing with majority view/behaviour because we believe they know better or are more likely to be right Nsi- agreeing with majority because we want to be liked or to avoid rejection |
Internalisation Identification Compliance ISI Nsi |
|
|
Conformity types and explanations eval |
Research support- conformity to incorrect answer on maths questions more likely with difficult questions and more likely for those who rated themselves poor at maths Limitation of individual differences- students less conformist (28%) than other participants (37%). Less conforming rates for engineering students also found by Sperry suggesting more knowledgeable and confident ppl less affected Two process approach for nsi and Isi oversimplified- states that conformity is either due to nsi or Isi however with dissenter in ash’s study could’ve reduced nsi and also could’ve reduced isi showing it is hard to see whether isi or nsi is at work |
Research support Limitation of individual differences Two process approach for nsi and isi oversimplified |
|
|
Aschs research |
Procedures- participants had to identify lines of the same length along with 6-8 confederates. 12 our of 16 critical trials. Findings- mistakenly agreed with confederate majority 37% of the time, mostly normative social influence. 25% never confirmed Group size: conformity increased to 32% with a majority of 3 but not further Unanimity- conformity rate dropped with a dissenter(whether tight or wrong) Task difficulty- conformity increased as the task got harder, mainly informational social influence |
|
|
|
Aschs research evaluation |
Limitation: findings may be a ‘child of the times’- only one conforming response in 396 trials. Engineering students more confident so less conformist. 1950s were conformist time Limitation: tasks and situation artificial- participants knew they were in a study so could’ve just followed demand characteristics. Trivial task so less reason to not conform. Don’t generalise to other situations Limitation: findings only apply to certain groups- only men tested by asch. Women may perhaps be more conformist as concerned for social relationships. Participants from america(individualist country). Suggested that conformity is higher in collectivist countries eg China as they are more concerned to group suggesting findings may be limited to america |
Findings may be child of its time Situation and task artificial Only applies to certain groups |
|
|
Zimbardos research |
Procedure- ‘emotionally stable’ students played roles of prisoners and guards in prison simulation scheduled to last two weeks. Guards and prisoners had their own uniforms to emphasise their social roles. Findings- guards treated prisoners harshly especially after suppressing an attempted rebellion. Prisoners became more depressed until the study was stopped after six days Conclusion- guards, prisoners and researchers all conformed to their roles within the mock prison. Study demonstrated the power of the situation to influence behaviour |
|
|
|
Zimbardo eval |
Strength: researchers had control over variables- emotionally stable participants recruited and randomly assigned to roles, leaving it to chance suggesting behaviours due to pressures of situation. This control increases internal validity Limitation: lack of realism- suggested that participants were play acting and simply following stereotypes of the roles. One guard based his role on a character from film ‘Cold Hand Like’. Prisoners rooted as they thought this is what prisoners did. However Data suggests 90% of convo was about prison life Limitation: lacks research support and contradicted by other research- a partial replication had opposite results where prisoners took control as guards did not share social identity like in zimbardos experiment, however the prisoners did |
Control over variables Lack of realism Contradicted by other research |
|
|
Milgrams research |
Procedure- ‘Teacher’ gave fake electric shocks to ‘learner’ during a ‘learning task’, ordered to do so by an experimented. At 315v learner pounded on the wall for the last time. Pross, e.g. ‘you have no other choice, you must go on.’ Findings- no participants stopped before 300v and 65% went all the way to top of shock scale 450v. Many showed signs of stress, most objected but continued anyway. Prior survey said 3% would obey |
|
|
|
Milgram eval |
Limitation: lacked internal validity- suggested participants guessed it was fake meaning he was not testing what he wanted to test. However in other study participants have real shocks to puppy and 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. In milgrams study 70% believed shocks were real Strength: good external validity- relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real life authority relationships. 21 our of 22 nurses carried out unjustified demands by doctors suggesting process of obedience in milgrams study can be generalised Strength: replications support findings- in game show participants paid to give shocks to other participants(actors). 80% gave max shock 450v to apparently unconscious man. Showed many signs of anxiety etc. |
Lacked internal validity Great external validity Replications support findings |
|
|
Situational variables |
Proximity- reducing the distance between teacher and learner reduced obedience. Obedience = 40% when learner and teacher in same room. Location- changing the location to somewhere with less status and prestige reduced obedience. Obedience = 47.5% in run down office Uniform- uniform is symbol of authority. Obedience = 20% when experimenters role was taken over by an ordinary member of public |
|
|
|
Situational variables |
Strength: research support for influence of situational variables- confederate dressed in jacket/tie, milkman or security guard and asked passers by to provide coin for parking meter for example. Ppl twice as likely to obey security guard than jacket and tie confederate which supports conc. that uniform conveys authority Limitation: lacks internal validity- suggested it is even more likely participants would realise it was fake due to extra experimental manipulation. When experimenter ‘replaced by random’ even milgram recognised Thai as so contrived someone may work it out. Unclear whether results due to obedience or they had worked it out and were simply going along Strength: replicated in other cultures- over 90% obedience in Spanish students so not limited to American males. However most replications taken place in western societies eg Spain which are not very different to us |
Research support of influence of situational variables Lacks internal validity Replicated in other cultures |
|
|
Agentic state |
Agentic state- ‘I was just following orders’. We fail to take responsibility because we believe we are acting on behalf of an authority figure. Autonomous state- we feel free of other influences and so take personal responsibility for our actions Agentic shift- we switch from autonomous to being an agent, because we perceive someone else to be an authority figure entitled to expect obedience |
|
|
|
Legitimacy of authority |
Legitimate authority- some people have positions of authority because they have been entrusted by society with certain powers eg police. Power- one power is the power to punish, so we obey authority out of fear of punishment which we learn in childhood Destructive obedience- we behave in cruel ways if the legitimate authority orders us to do something destructive |
|
|
|
Agentic state and legitimacy of authority evaluation |
Strength: agentic state explanation has research support- students shown film of milgram study and they identified the experimenter as responsible for the harm to learner due to their legitimate authority which caused the obedience Limitation: agentic shift doesn’t explain many of research findings- some participants did not obey despite this explanation suggesting that they should’ve all done so. Also nurses should’ve shown anxiety when giving responsibility over to doctor however this was not the case suggesting agentic shift can only account for some situations Legitimacy of authority a useful account of cultural diff in obedience- only 16% went to highest shock in Australia and 85% of Germans did. Authority more likely to be accepted as leng intimate in some cultures. This reflects how diff societies are structured and raise children to perceive authority figures
|
Agentic state research support Agentic shift doesn’t explain many of findings Legitimacy of authority useful account for cultural differences in obedience |
|
|
Authoritarian personality |
Adornos procedure- studies over 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes to racial groups. Findings: high f-scale scores linked with identification with the ‘strong’ and contempt for ‘weak’ Example of f-scale- obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn Characteristics- extreme respect for authority and obedience to it, very inflexible outlook, hatred for minorities Origins- harsh parenting results in hostility but cannot be expressed against parents so displaced |
|
|
|
Authoritarian personality evaluation |
Research support- interviewed small sample of fully obedient participants who scored high on f scale. A link was found suggesting they are linked however it is just a correlation so we cannot draw the conc. that authoritarian personality causes obedience Limited explanation- hard to explain obedience in majority from individual personalities eg millions of ppl in Germany were obedient in the war despite the fact that they must’ve suffered in personality in a number of ways Political bias- f scale measures tendency to lean towards right wing ideology which is suggested to be a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality as it does not take left wing authoritarianism into account. Weakness as can’t account for obedience to authority across political spectrum |
Research support Limited explanation Political bias |
|
|
Resistance - social support |
Resist conformity- conformity less likely when a dissenter breaks from majority Resist obedience- obedience less likely when disobedient role model available Resistance- both cases show other people that resistance is possible |
|
|
|
Resistance- social support eval |
Research support- resistance to conformity: cogformity decreased with one dissenter in asch study. Even occurred when dissenter wore thick glasses and said they had trouble with eyesight showing it reduces group pressure Research support- resistance to obedience: higher levels of resistance to milgrams study in fandoms study where they were in groups. 29 our of 33 rebelled showing peer support is linked to greater resistance |
|
|
|
Resistance- locus if control |
Internal LOC- fate lies in your own hands so better equipped to resist social influence External LOC- what happens to you is down to luck or chance so no point resisting Resisting influence- internals are more confident and have less need for social approval |
|
|
|
Resistance - locus of control eval |
Research support- milgrams study repeated and recorded LOC of participants. 37% of internals didn’t go to highest shock and 23% of externals showing that internals had greater resistance Contradictory research- American LOC studied over 40 year period and showed that people have become more resistant as time progresses but have also become more external |
|
|
|
Minority influence |
Minority influence- one person/ small group influeneces one person/ small group/large group. Consistency: minority stay united and keep same views over time. Commitment: augmentation principle > personal sacrifices show minority not acting out of self interest. Flexibility: minority should accept reasonable counter arguments from majority. Process of change: majority thinks deeply about minority view then snowball effect- minority becomes majority |
|
|
|
Minority influence eval |
Strength: demonstrates importance of consistency- found consistent minority opinion is more effective than inconsistent opinion. Also a meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies found mjnorities who were consistent were most influential Limitation: research often involves artificial tasks- moscovicis task was identifying colours of slides, not representative of real life. Lack external validity and are limited in telling us how minority influence works in real life situations Strength: research supports involvement of internalisation in minority influence- variation of moscovicis study where they wrote their answers down so it was private and the agreement with minority was greater showing that internalisation took place |
Demonstrated importance of consistency Involves artificial tasks Research supports internalisation after minority influence |
|
|
Social change |
Minority influence: special role in social change because leads to innovation(Moscovi) Processes: draw attention, consistency, deeper processing, augmentation principle, snowball effect Social cryptomnesia: people forget the origins of a social change Conformity: normative social influence- people change their behaviour because they believe majority are too. Obedience: gradual commitment- people obey instructions one step at a time |
|
|
|
Social change eval |
Strength: research support for role of nsi in social influence- hung messages on doors stating most ppl are trying to reduce energy usage which led to significant decreases in energy use compared to control group where the messages didn’t mention anything about others Limitation: minority influence only indirectly effective in creating social change- effects suggested to be indirect and delayed. Took decades to change attitudes on smoke and drink driving. Indirect> majority influenced by matters related to central issue not the issue itself Limitation: nature of deeper processing has been questioned- It is suggested that minority influence creates deep processing however this is challenged and is stated that majority influence creates deeper processing of views are not shared as we believe others think like us so when this is challenged we must think deeply about this. This challenges a central element of the explanation and cats doubt on it |
Research support for influence of nsi Minority influence only indirectly effective in creating social change Nature of deeper processing has been wuestioned |
