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
|
What are the three types of conformity? |
Compliance - behaviour is accepted to gain approval without changing underlying attitudes. Internalisation - behaviour accepted because it is believed, internal and external attitudes both changed Identification - behaviour accepted to be associated with a group, internalised ideas but due to compliance |
|
|
AO3 Issue with types of conformity |
Hard to distinguish between compliance and temporary internalisation |
|
|
Explanations for conformity: 2 types of social influence |
Normative social influence - conform to gain approval and fit in. Will not show attitudes privately. Compliance but not internalisation. Informational social influence - conform due to desire to be right, leading to internalisation |
|
|
AO3 Types of Social Conformity (4 points) |
Research support for NSI - Linkenback and Perkins (2003) teens less likely to smoke if majority of peers don't. Reserach support for ISI - Fein (2007) opinions of presidential candidates vary based on peer reactions Under-detecting importance of NSI - Nolan found people underestimate influence of neighbours behaviour on their actions. Laughlin (1999) found task type influence impact of ISI on behaviour. Majorities exert greater impact on social concepts than physical concepts. |
|
|
Asch's line study |
1956 123 male US undergrads participated Answered questions about length of comparison line v standard lines. Confederates used to influence Consistant incorrect confederate answers gives 33% incorrect answers in participants. Drops to 1% when confederate answers were inconsistant. Later interviews suggest this was compliance not internalisation. 1/4 of participants never conformed. |
|
|
Variables affecting conformity - changes to Asch's study |
Group size - conformity to 30% when majority of 3 not 2. Further majority not changning. So group size has limited impact. Unanimity of the majority - conformity drops to 5.5% with social support. Difficulty of task - increased conformity with harder tasks |
|
|
AO3 for Asch's Line Study |
Conformity both situational differences and individual differences - high self efficacy (confidence) lead to less conformity regardless of task difficulty. Context of 1950s study - McCarthyism (strongly anti-communist) increased conformity. Repeat of study in 1980 in UK had 1/396 conformity trials. Low mundane realism limits validity All male participants - limit generalisability. Campbell and Fairey - larger group majority would have greater impact when answers were subjective rather than an objective decision. |
|
|
Stanford Prison Experiment |
Zimbardo (1973) used to explore conformity to social roles. Psychologically and physically screened male US student volunteers, used 24 most stable in study. Randomly assigned role of prisoner or guard with realism increased using arrests, ID cards, sunglasses etc. Both groups conformed quickly to social roles, guards becoming violent and abusive and prisoners increasingly acceptive of this after brief rebellion. Study ended 6 days rather than 14 due to concerns for patient safety. |
|
|
AO3 Zimbardo |
Realism of study - participants believed in study, asked for 'parole' when asking to leave study, supports validity of study.
Exaggerated conclusions - some guards were aggressive but others were sympathetic or actively helping prisoners.
Demand characteristics - Banuazizi found students could guess aims of study and participant behaviour. Likely that participants behaviour was due to demand characteristics.
Ethical issues - prevention from harm, informed consent, 5 participants left study early due to extreme psychological reactions + whole study closed early.
Repeatability - BBC prison study by Reicher (2006) lasted 8 days, prisoners formed collective identity and guards reluctant to enforce power. So Zimbardo may not accurately reflect conformity to social roles.
|
|
|
AO3 Zimbardo |
Realism of study - participants believed in study, asked for 'parole' when asking to leave study, supports validity of study.
Exaggerated conclusions - some guards were aggressive but others were sympathetic or actively helping prisoners.
Demand characteristics - Banuazizi found students could guess aims of study and participant behaviour. Likely that participants behaviour was due to demand characteristics.
Ethical issues - prevention from harm, informed consent, 5 participants left study early due to extreme psychological reactions + whole study closed early.
Repeatability - BBC prison study by Reicher (2006) lasted 8 days, prisoners formed collective identity and guards reluctant to enforce power. So Zimbardo may not accurately reflect conformity to social roles.
|
|
|
situational variables affecting obedience - Milgram AO1 |
1973 40 participants in teacher role, confederates as experimenter and learner. Wrong answers in a memory test were given electric shocks from 15V to 450V. 300V learner pounded on wall, after 315V was silent. Experimenter prompted 'it is absolutely essentiial that you continue' 65% went to 450V, only 5 stopped at 300V. |
|
|
Situational variables affecting obedience - Milgrams variations |
Proximity - 40% when teacher and learner in same room, 30% when hand forced onto plate. 21% when commands given through telephone.
Location - change from high prestige Yale uni to run down office buildin, obedience dropped to 48%
Uniform - Bushmann (1998) had female researcher dress in police uniform (72%), office wear (48%) and a beggar (52%), interviews later suggest people obey because of uniform |
|
|
A03 Situational Factors Affecting Obedience |
Internal validity - Perry (2012) particpants skeptical about reality of shocks. Disobedience more common in those who didn't believe. Historical Validity - Blass (1999) statistical analysis found no correlations between publication year and obedience, suggests can be generalised to modern day Demand Characteristcs - Fromm (1973) participants more obedient in lab based setting. Real life obedience take longer to cultivate so study might not be generalisable. Ethical issues - informed consent, failure to protect from harm (several participants demonstrated extreme emotional distress), hard to exercise right to withdraw. |
|
|
Agentic State definition + explanation |
person sees themself as an agent for carrying out another person's wishes. Do not feel responsible for actions. Enables maintanence of positive self-image, absence of guilt. Binding factors 'hold' person in agentic state such as fear of punishment and social etiiquette. |
|
|
Agentic shift definition |
process of moving between autonomous state (responsible for actions) and agentic state |
|
|
Legitimate authority |
Perception of position of social control within a situation which causes someone to act in the agentic state. Authority figure must also be attached to an institution (one explanation for location variation of Milgram's study conducted by 'Reserach Associates of Bridgeport' still having high obedience rates) |
|
|
AO3 Agentic State and Legitimate Authority |
Limited application - Lifton found shift in obedience more gradual and irreversible in German doctors in Auschwitz. Not explained by agentic shift.
But can be applied to real life situations like the Mai Lai massacre and Lt William Calley. Also explains Milgram's findings Fennis and Aarts suggested obedience when an individual was acting in the agentic state was because of a loss of personal control. Linked a reduction of personal control to greater obedience to authority, greater bystander apathy and greater compliance. |
|
|
Explain Social Support |
When an individual acts differently to the majority, making it easier for others to do the same.
Asch (1956) conformity dropped from 30% to 5.5% when social support given to participants. Milgram found disobedient confederate dropped obedience to 10% Gives perception that assistance is availabe from others, breaks the unanimity of the majority. Supports individual decisions by providing an ally. |
|
|
Explain locus of control |
Extent to which a person believes events are under their control. Either external - events due to fate, outside of control, more passive and obedient, demonstrate high externality. or internal - events depenedent on their actions, more achievement orientated, more likely to resist social influence and demonstrate high internality. |
|
|
AO3 for resisting social influence |
Real life application for SS - 1943 German women stood up to Gestapo (police), provided SS and resulted in 2000 Jewish men being set free. Reserach support - from Milgram and Asch, Rees and Wallace found teens resist pressure to drink alcohol if friends provide SS, supporting non-lab setting. Locus of control can change - Twenge found increase in External LoC between 1960 and 2002 in US. Spector (1983) found external LOC more likely to conform to NSI but no difference for ISI, so varied significance. |
|
|
Minority Influence |
Form of social influence where members of minority group influence members of majority to bring about social change. Individual beliefs are converted, begin to identify with minority until it becomes majority view. Deeper, longer lasting form of SI. Requires minority to be Consistant - get others to reassess beliefs Committed - show certainty and confidence, be taken seriously Flexible - less powerful so need to negotioate. But not so much to be inconsistant. |
|
|
Minority influence key study |
Moscovici (1969) - groups shown tiles which were different shades of blue and green and asked to decide on their colour. Confederates acted as consistant/inconsistant minority saying green.
Consistant minority influence impacted 8% of trials, inconsistant had no impact. Those in consistant group more likely to agree with confederates in private as well so internalisation rather than just compliance caused. |
|
|
What are the two ways people resist social influence? |
Social support Locus of control |
|
|
AO3 Minority Influence |
Changes shown by Moscovici very small, arguable negligible so weak research support. Xie found 'tipping point' of 10% consistantly showning minority view in order to majority to agree. Mackie argues social change only really occurs when majority view differs to the individual's rather than minority message being processed. Alternative explanation. Nemeth suggested minority influence works because it allows for dissent and consideration of other view points making individauls search for information. Possible explanation for theory. |
|
|
What are the two ways that social change can come about? |
Minority influence - attention drawn to an issue, cognitive conflict between norm and minority view created, leading to reevaluation of current beliefs. Augmentation principle suggests that if minority willing to suffer for their views they are taken more seriously. Snowball effect occurs when minority view spreads, reaching tipping pooint and becomes majority view. Majorty influence (conformity) - individuals conform to believed norms. Misperception occurs when there is a difference between percieved norms (informs behaviour, what is believed to be normal) and actual norm (actual behaviours). We can use mispercetion to bring about social change through advertising actual normal to target population and correcting misperception. |
|
|
AO3 for Minority and Majority influence |
Real life application - Advertising actual norms of young adults drinking + driving in Montana reduced drink driving events by 13.7%. Perceieved norm was 92%, actual was 20% advertising corrects gap. Minority influence may only bring potential for change since takes a long time to overcome tendency to conform. Minority influence limited by also needing to overcome majorities view of them as an undesirable, deviant source of information Can overcome view of deviant minorty - ''Communist Manifesto" published in 1848 portrayed minority as holding majority views of working class allowing for social change to occur. |
|
|
What are some features of the authoritarian personality? |
distinct personality characterised by strict adherece to conventional moral values belief in absolute obedience / submission to authority rigid moral thinking high score on Adorno's (1950) F scale (used statements like 'rules are there for people to follow, not change') |
|
|
Authoritarian personality and family dynamics |
Higher score on the F-scale had more authoritarian personalities and were more likely to have strict, authoritarian parents. Suggests a correlation between the two points |
|
|
2 studies linked with the authoritarian personality |
Altemeyer (1981) - high right-wing authoritarian people more likely to obey (traits were correlated) and said this was because of conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, and authoritarian submission. Elms and Milgram (1966) - followed up on Milgram's original study having participants complete questionnaires including F-scale. Higher authoritarian personalities linked to higher levels of obedience in the study |
|
|
AO3 Authoritarian Personality |
Limited application - Milgram showed greater variation in obedience with situational rather than dispositional factors. So cannot disregard situational factors. Unlikely that all of Milgram's obedient participants grew up in strict families. Many actually reported good parental relationships. So family background may influence authoritarian personality but less so on obedience Milgram found greater obedience in those with a lower level of educational attainment. Another potential reason for obedience. Authoritarian personality shows correlation not causation. Begue found that holding left-wing values reduced likelihood of obedience in Milgram's study, so individual differences play a role too. |
