Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
social influence
theories, sociologists, evaluation etc.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Milgram's study strengths | internal validity- control of variables, lab experiment,controlled environment etc. reliability- reproduced a similar result with 40 different p's,tested situational variables, results aligned with theory etc. |
| Milgram's situational variables | proximity uniform location |
| examples of Milgram's proximity variables | teacher and learner in the same room (40%) teacher forces learners hand onto plate (30%) experimenter told them to continue over the phone (20.5%) |
| Zimbardo, Stanford prison study aim | to investigate the extent to which people would conform to assigned roles |
| Zimbardo , Stanford prison study results | prisoners rebelled, quickly stopped,guards were aggressive,demeaning etc. both complying to script one ringleader of guards, most internally disagreed replacement prisoner,hunger strike Zimbardo was paranoid, moved, ended day six |
| examples of Milgram's uniform variables | experimenter replaced with a member of the public in everyday clothing (20%) |
| examples of Milgram's location variables | run-down building over Yale where the original study took place, less authority (47.5%) |
| Milgram's method | 1961, american male volunteer students, advertised as a memory test, seemingly randomly assigned teacher,gave increasingly high voltage for wrong answer up to 450v, pre-recorded responses to each shock, if they asked to stop three responses to continue |
| Zimbardo, Stanford prison study method | 1971, 3 cells each with 3 beds, 'hole' both had uniforms guards- reflective glasses etc. Zimbardo,superintendent and psychologist 24 p's, 9 guards,9 prisoners,6 reserves american male volunteer students |
| Milgram's aim | to investigate whether individuals will blindly obey a legitimate authority figure |
| Milgram's results | varying levels of distress most continued as experimenter told them to 65% went to 450v 100% reached 300v even with responses of distress and silence etc. |
| Milgram's conclusion | majority of people obey orders from someone they perceive as legitimate authority ignoring the consequences and responsibility |
| Milgram's study weaknesses | validity-temporal,population,ecological ethical issues- protection from harm,informed consent,right to withdraw volunteer sampling |
| Binding factors in obedience | factors that allow someone to ignore their behaviour and minimise their moral strain so they no longer respond using their morals and act as an agent e.g learner gave consent to take part and the authority/expertise of the authority |
| Zimbardo, Stanford prison study conclusion | people will readily conform to the social roles they're expected to play especially if the roles are strongly stereotyped |
| Zimbardo, Stanford prison study strengths | internal validity- cause-effect established, control over key variables, emotionally stable p's, randomly assigned roles debrief-p's offered counselling |
| Asch strengths | reliability-variations, similar results when changing group size, unanimity and task difficulty control group-validity,shows the impact of independent variable on dependent, easy to see change |
| Asch, variables that impact conformity | group size- more than 3 (32%), 1 (3%), 2 (12.8%) unanimity-conformity dropped (5%) task difficulty- increased,informational social influence |
| internalisation | genuinely accept the beliefs/norms of others, both privately and publicly agree |
| identification | want to be part of the group so change to the extent to fit in, don't believe and don't change to align with everything |
| complaince | agreeing and changing to align with beliefs in the public but privately/deep down not agreeing |
| Asch's aim | to investigate conformity in group pressured situations |
| Asch's conclusion | many are influenced by group pressure as a result of a desire to fit in,though many can resist |
| Asch's results | on average 32% of p's conformed, 74% conformed at least once, 26% never conformed in the control group less than 1% conformed the interviews showed normative social influence |
| informational social influence | influenced by the desire to be correct, follow an expert, most likely in new situations, ambiguous situations and when an expert is involved |
| normative social influence | the influence others have over you because you want to be liked and approved of |
| Asch's method | asked to match the lines of the same length, 1 p and 5-7 confederates that purposely gave the wrong answer after 3 rounds of questions later he redid the study with different variables |
| Asch weaknesses | population validity- 50 male american students cannot generalise ecological validity-artificial task temporal validity- 1951,changes in societal attitudes, more individualism, changes because of tech ( Asch used cards) ethical issues- deception/PFH? |
| Milgram's variations, how pressure can be reduced | if they see another disobey the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% e.g the p joined by a disobedient confederate, dissenter acts as a 'model' for p's to copy |
| Allen and Levine (1971) | conformity decreased with one dissenter in Asch type study, if dissenter wore thick glasses and had difficulty with his vision it still occurred, supports view that resistance isn't motivated by following what someone else says etc. |
| Milgram's agency theory | people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions |
| autonomous state | have responsibility for your actions, in control and bodily autonomy |
| moral strain | due to order against moral judgement |
| agentic state | agent for the authority figure, you feel they have responsibility for your actions |
| agentic shift | accept the order, feel as if the authority figure is in control |
| legitimacy of authority | Milgram suggested we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy |
| authoritarian personality | Adorno, someone who is extremely obedient to and has extreme respect for authority figure have highly conventional attitudes they try to enforce often caused by harsh parenting (conditional love), displace hostility onto others (scapegoating) |
| Adorno's research | tried to explain the holocaust and why so many obeyed which links to the personality of individuals studied 2000 m/c white americans, used f-scale to measure ap if high score, strong/respectful but judgemental and prejudicial |
| reasons for resistance to social influence | social support and locus of control |
| Zimbardo,Stanford prison study weaknesses | ethical issues-protection,trust,documentary (anonymity, info with a lack of evidence), informed consent, right to withdraw etc. volunteer sampling demand characteristics population validity reliability |
| impact of social support in resistance | an individual may resist if they have support from others (a dissenter), frees them from the pressure to conform or obey, act independently |
| Rotter (1966) | proposed the concept of LOC, internal vs external control |
| locus of control | internal-largely controlled by themselves external-things happen without their own control, mainly due to luck |
| what gives minority influence power | consistency,commitment,flexibility |
| process of social changes | drawing attention,consistency,cognitive conflict/deeper processing, augmentation principle, snowball effect, social cryptomnesia |
| social cryptomnesia | change has occurred but you cannot remember how |
| snowball effect | influence spreads more widely as more people believe the issue is prominent |
| augmentation principle | willing to suffer for their views |
| cognitive conflict | minority questioning the beliefs of others |
| consistency | everyone has one clear message that is always argued |
| drawing attention | protesting etc. e.g Rosa Parks refusing to move from her seat, suffragettes chaining themselves to buildings etc. |
| Moscovici weaknesses | ecological validity-artificial task real life application-jury decision making/political campaigning deception-confederates |
| Mosovici aim | to discover if a consistent minority could influence the majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception task |
| Moscovici strengths | wood et al (1994), meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that consistent minorities were most influential internal validity, clear and obvious distinction between majority and minority,causation over correlation, controlled environment |
| Moscovici method | showed 6 people a set of 36 blue coloured slides what varied in intensity, asked each p if the slide was blue or green 2 confederates in who consistently said they were green on 2/3 of the slides 2nd group inconsistent minority 3rd group control |
| Moscovici aim | to discover if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a colour perception task |
| Moscovici results | group 1-wrong answer 8.42% of the time, 32% same answer at least once group 2-gave same answer 1.25% of the time group 3- wrong 0.25% of the time |
| Moscovici conclusion | minority influence had a greater effect when their opinion was consistent |
| Milgram's agency theory evaluation | real life application but it has been perceived as excusing the actions of Nazi officers etc. as a result supporting evidence, however possible researcher bias as it was carried out by him |
Created by:
emsteel
Popular Psychology sets