Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social influence, Resisting Social Influence, Conformity, Minority Social…

- - - - Obedience level drops from 65% to 10% of participants administering the full 450 volts
  - - - Resistance and social support (IV) are manipulated by introducing 2 more confederates who play the role of teacher alongside the naïve participant
        
        Each take it in turns to ask questions but only naïve participant administers the shock
        
        Confederate 1 instructed to disobey and leave experiment at 150 volts
        
        Confederate 2 instructed to disobey and leave experiment at 210 volts
        
        This aimed to show the effect that manipulation of resistance has on obedience (DV)
        
        Measured by counting the number of participants who still went to the full 450 volts
- - - - However, when a confederate was asked to dissent (go against) from the unanimity of the majority, conformity rate dropped to 5.5%
  - - - However, by breaking unanimity and having a dissenter go against the majority, it made it easier for the naïve participant to have more independence of mind and confidence to pursue their own answers
        
        Dissenting voices provide a form of social support, enabling people to resist conforming to a majority view
  - - - Participants were shown 2 cards with lines. One card had a test/standard line and the other card had 3 comparison lines
        
        Participant had to say out loud which of the 3 lines matched the test line
        
        Some confederates were instructed to give the same wrong answer
        
        In other trials, confederates were instructed to break unanimity and give different wrong answers
        
        Asch wanted to see the effect that manipulating unanimity had on conformity
        
        Did this by counting the number of times that the naïve participants conformed to the wrong answer
      - Between 7 - 10 participants per group. 1 naïve participant and 9 confederates
- - - - Participants from the old experiment who were able to resist obedience were interviewed
        
        Findings:
        
        They found that the participants who resisted had a high internal LOC as they also scored highly on a social responsibility scale
        
        This finding along with other studies suggest that people with high internal LOC are able to take responsibility for their actions which allows them to resist obedience
- - - - 30 students assessed for LOC
        
        Findings:
        
        No difference in conformity rates between students who had high internal or high external LOC
        
        Those who did conform however were significantly less assertive, suggesting that assertiveness may be as important in resistance to conformity as LOC
  - - - Groups were mixed, some with peers who had conservative anti-drug taking attitudes and another group that expressed liberal, flexible attitudes towards drug taking
        
        Groups were observed interacting and discussing drugs
        
        Findings:
        
        People with a high internal LOC and held conservative attitudes towards drug use conformed less to expressing pro-drug taking attitudes
        
        This supports the idea that internal control is a factor in resisting conformity
- - - - Findings:
        
        People have become more resistant to obedience but also more external.
        
        This Challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour
        
        Results could have also been affected by changing society which is out of personal control
  - - - 157 undergraduate students used
        
        Findings:
        
        Significant correlation between locus of control and predisposition to normative social influence. External LOC more likely to conform than internal LOCs
        
        However, no such relationship between predisposition and informational social influence was found. LOC not a significant factor in ISI
        
        Conclusion:
        
        Externals are more likely to conform than internals in NSI but will not conform more in ISI
  - - - Findings:
        
        Strong correlation between scores of internal/external LOC and scores on measure of persuasion, social influence and conformity
        
        Individuals who scored higher on external LOC tend to be more easily persuaded, influenced & more conforming than internal LOCs
- - - - German women protested against the Gestapo holding 2000 Jewish men, most of whom were married to non-Jewish partners, hostage
        
        Despite threats to open fire, the womens' persistence prevailed and the men were set free
        
        The women were able to successfully resist and have courage due to the collective action of their peers
  - - - Individuals that had friends who drank alcohol were significantly more likely to engage in drunkenness over the previous 12 months.
        
        However, individuals were also found to resist pressures to drink alcohol when they had 1 or 2 friends who also resisted
        
        Consistent with lab-based experiments on social influence. Shows that social support offered by non-drinking friends can decrease the odds of a non-drinker deciding to consume alcohol, even in the presence of the drinking majority
  - - - Allen & Levine (1971): found that conformity decreased when there was one dissenter, even if the dissenter said he had difficulty with his vision (which would make his judgement of the lines unreliable)
        
        This shows that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free from the pressure of the group
- - - - People see themselves as having a lot of personal control over their own behaviour. They believe they have the ability to influence events in their life
        
        These people take responsibility for their own actions and therefore are more able to resist pressures to obey
    - - People have a fatalistic attitude. They believe events in their life are caused by external factors which they are unable to control
        
        People with high external LOC are less able to resist pressures to obey
- - - - 21 male student volunteers were selected through newspaper advertisements
        
        Participants were tested for emotional stability and physical health then allocated the role of prisoner (11x) or guard (10x).
        
        Experiment day:
        
        'Prisoners' were arrested by real police
        
        Charged with suspicion of armed robbery, fingerprinted, strip-searched and issued prison uniform
        
        9 prisoners were placed 3 to a cell
        
        Guards had regular routine of shifts
        
        1 more item...
        
        Prisoners were allowed meal times & visiting times
        
        Independent variable:
        
        1 more item...
        
        Dependent variable:
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Guards:
        
        Some guards became increasingly aggressive as the experiment went on and acted beyond the minimum requirements
        
        E.g: 1/3 of the guards taunted prisoners and gave them meaningless and sadistic tasks to do (cleaning toilets with their bare hands)
      - Prisoners:
        
        Prisoners became submissive and showed extreme signs of stress such as uncontrolled crying and depression
        
        One prisoner was released 36 hours in because of his fits of rage and crying
        
        3 more released later after suffering the same symptoms
        
        Zimbardo ended the experiment early on day 6 as the extent of the harm was more than anticipated
        
        Conclusion:
        
        Individuals conformed to the social roles demanded by the situation
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Zimbardo hoped that findings would lead to prison reforms
        
        Study Question: To what extent would people conform to the roles of prisoner and guard?
        
        Planned study duration: 2 weeks
        
        Actual study duration: 6 days
- - - - When placed in a novel or ambiguous situation, we look to others for information regarding how to behave.
        
        Information given off by others helps us conform. e.g: if there's a flood and people are running away, you would naturally run in the same direction as everyone else since you don't know how to behave in a flood
  - - - We constantly seek approval from others and are motivated to avoid rejection
        
        Groups of people usually have norms that (explicit & implicit) that guide their behaviour. People like to act the way the group expects them to
  - - - It's hard to tell if participants are genuinely believing in what they are conforming to (internalisation) or just a public show
    - - Often assumed that either informational social influence or normative social influence causes behaviours. However, both processes are usually involved
    - - Jenness' Jelly Bean Experiment (1932):
        
        Method and Procedure:
        
        Participants were asked individually and in private to estimate the number of jellybeans in a jar
        
        They were then asked to discuss their estimates with other participants
        
        Groups sizes varied from small to large and each group was to present a group estimate
        
        Jenness privately asked each participant for the number jellybeans again
        
        2 more items...
        
        Findings:
        
        Individual's 2nd estimate moved towards the estimate arrived at in their group discussions
        
        Aims:
        
        Will individual judgments of the number of jellybeans in a jar be influenced by information gained from group discussion?
    - - Research in US has supported the important role played by normative social beliefs in shaping behaviours such as smoking and energy conservation
        
        Found that adolescents exposed to the message that the majority of their peers didn't smoke were subsequently less likely to take up smoking
        
        Hotel guests exposed to the normative message that 75% of their guests reuse their towels each day (energy saving behaviour) reduced their own towel use by 25%
- - - - The Snowball Effect
        
        Members of the majority slowly move to the minority. Social change gradually picks up momentum
        
        Social Crypto-Amnesia
      - When a individual or group move from a position of compliance to internalisation where the new idea is accepted publicly and privately
- - - - Dispositional explanation: This suggests that a person who is born with or develops certain personalities/characteristics predisposes them to be particularly brutal or harsh towards others.
        
        Adorno believed that the dispositional factors will cause a person to form an authoritarian personality type.
        
        This means they will either blindly follow authority or will be excessive in exerting power and authority over those in a lower position of power.
    - - The F-Scale: Adorno constructed an attitude questionnaire (psychometric test) to measure anti-Semitism.
        
        The F-Scale measured different aspects of personality that were considered features of an authoritarian personality e.g: "obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn"
        
        Agreeing with such statements was indicative of an Authoritarian Personality
        
        Findings
        
        Adorno found that those who scored highly on the F-Scale tended to identify with individuals they deemed to be 'strong' & show contempt towards the 'weak'.
        
        People with Authoritarian personalities also appeared to have fixed and distinctive stereotypes about different groups of people
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Milgram and Elms (1966) conducted a follow up study with a small sample of fully obedient participants
        
        Many scored highly on the F-Scale, suggesting that there might be a link between obedience and personality
        
        Since this is only a correlation, it's impossible to draw the conclusion that authoritarian personality causes obedience
    - - F-Scale only measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
        
        Christie and Jahoda pointed out that left-wing authoritarianism had a lot in common with extreme right-wing ideologies.
        
        Adorno's theory is limited as it's not a comprehensive dispositional explanation. The link between obedience and authority may not be true across the whole political spectrum
    - - Psychometric tests lack validity. What a person states in a questionnaire may not be an accurate measurement of their attitude or behaviour in real life
    - - Trying to associate authoritarian personality type with obedience hasn't been successful
        
        Obedience has shown to be associated with people with extreme left and right wing views
        
        Psychologists consider the obedient behaviour to be caused by a mix of social, situational and psychological influences
- - - - Autonomous state: Independence and can make decisions for themselves
        
        Individual obeys authority figure
        
        Agentic state: Individual sees themselves as an agent of authority and shift the responsibility of their actions to the authority figure
        
        Milgram saw that many of his participants wanted to quit but didn't. Why did they stay in the agentic state?
        
        Binding factors: Aspects of a situation which allow the person to feel less of a moral strain they are feeling when doing their actions e.g: shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims
        
        Individuals are used to the agentic state as they have been socialised from an early age to be obedient to rules
        
        Disadvantages
        
        Individuals can become deindividuated and lose a sense of what it is to be an individual in society
        
        Individuals can be vulnerable to obey orders that go against their moral code
        
        Advantages
        
        Obedience to rules helps maintain a "safe and secure society"
    - - Limitation - Agentic shift or just plain cruel?:
      - Limitation - Real life obedience:
        
        The claim that people shift between autonomous state and agentic state cannot explain very gradual and irreversible transition.
        
        Lifton (1986) found in his study of German doctors working in Auschwitz that they had changed gradually and irreversibly from ordinary medical professionals, into people capable of carrying out vile and lethal experiments in prisoners
        
        Staub (1989) suggested that rather than agentic shift being responsible for the transition, it is the experience of carrying out acts of ovil over a long time that changes the way in which individuals think and behave
      - Strength - Supporting evidence:
        
        In the Proximity to Authority condition in his experiment, instructions from the authority figure were given via telephone.
        
        Obedience dropped from 65% to 20% giving full 450 volts. Milgram suggested that due to the absence of the authority figure, participants were able to enter an autonomous state more easily and were able to see themselves as responsible for their own behaviour
  - - - Many cultures' members that are socialised to accept that certain key figures in society have legitimate power and authority
        
        They therefore believe this figures have the right to issue orders and tell its members how to behave
        
        In his experiment, the professor was the authority figure. The scientific status legitimised his authority so when he issued orders, participants were willing to obey his authority without question
    - - Strength - Supporting evidence:
        
        Milgram reported that throughout the experiment, many participants ignored the distress of the confederate and chose to focus on the authority figure instead
        
        This shows that participants recognised and accepted the legitimate authority of the authority figure
      - Strength - Supporting evidence. Tarnoe (2000):
      - Strength - Cultural differences:
        
        This explanation is a useful account of cultural differences. Many. countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient.
        
        E.g: Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found that only 16% of participants went to 450 volts but when Mantell (1971) did the study in Germany and found that 85% of participants went to 450 volts
        
        This shows that in some countries, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled. It reflects the ways in which different societies are structured and how children are raised to preserve authority
        
        Cross cultural research increases validity of the Legitimate Authority explanation