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
psychology
year 1 social influence flashcards
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| What is conformity? | the tendency for a person to change their behaviour and/ or beliefs in response to pressure from other people in a group(yielding to group pressure) |
| What is obedience? | Behaving as instructed. |
| Who ‘asks’? - Conformity | Nobody- we act to please peers, friends and social group. |
| Who ‘asks’?- Obedience | Authority figures- parents, teachers, police, government etc. |
| Why do we do it?- Conformity | To be accepted, liked, just to fit in or to avoid embarrassment. |
| Why do we do it?- Obedience | To avoid punishment or unpleasant consequences. |
| Compliance | A superficial type of conformity where we just want to fit in so we change our public but not private opinion/action to be accepted/avoid disapproval. Example: following trends you don’t believe in |
| Internalisation | Deeper type of conformity, where we fully change our public and private beliefs. Example: being taught how poorly treated animals are might lead you to become a vegetarian |
| Identification | Conforming to the expectations of a social role, usually changing public and private beliefs(desensitisation) but these fade when out of the role. Examples: ~Zimbardo’s prison study ~everyday roles are policemen, teachers, nurses, armed forces etc. |
| Dual Process Dependency Model(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) General Info | • 2 part model to explain why people conform • distinguishes between informational social influence(ISI) and normative social influence(NSI) |
| Dual Process Dependency Model(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) ISI- Why conform? | ~want to be right ~people conform because they have a desire to be correct ~they are uncertain about their own views so look to others for guidance ~people look to the opinions of others who might know more about the subject |
| Dual Process Dependency Model(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) ISI- leads to? | ~internalisation ~people change their behaviour, convert their private opinions and attitudes |
| Dual Process Dependency Model(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) NSI- Why conform? | ~peer pressure ~people conform because they want to be liked, respected and accepted by members of the group ~people ‘go along with the crowd’ |
| Dual Process Dependency Model(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) NSI- leads to? | ~compliance ~people change their behaviour but do not convert their private opinions and attitudes |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Aim | to investigate whether individual judgements of jelly beans in a jar was influenced by discussion in groups |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Method | ~ambiguous ~glass bottle-811 white beans ~101 psych students individ estimated how many beans ~Ps divided->groups of 3(1=stooge) & asked to provide a group estimate through discussion ~after discussion:Ps estimate no. of beans(see if change og answer) |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Findings | ~nearly all participants changed their original answers ~on average: ~male Ps changed their answers by 256 beans ~female Ps changed their answers by 382 beans ~likely to be the result of ISI |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Conclusion | ~judgements of individuals=affected by majority opinions especially in ambiguous situations ~discussion not effective in changing opinion unless individuals who enter into the discussions become aware of others with dif opinions to theirs ~support ISI |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Strength cue: high reliability | ~used standardised procedures ~such as every ….person seeing ….the same jar of ….beans in the ….procedure ~means the test could be easily replicated ~same results found |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Weakness cue: unethical -> deception | ~avoided telling the Ps the true aim of the experiment ~[aim] ~Ps couldn’t give informed consent(didn’t know the aim) ~breaches ethical guideline of deception ~however: no psych harm/minimal distress/justified deception/no need for counselling etc. |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Weakness cue: low ecological validity | ~artificial enviro ~e.g. artificial taskse.g. asking people to estimate the number of beans in jar whilst all sitting around together ~means we can’t apply our findings in other settings ~specifically natural settings and an everyday environments |
| Jenness 1932 (informational social influence) Weakness cue: low internal validity | ~psych students ~guess aim ~demand characteristics ~change behav ~screw you effect/please researchers ~no cause&effect(extraneous variables) ~can’t generalise- think/react same as non-psychology students ~dif minds/way of thinking-know ins&outs |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Aim | investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave wrong answers |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Method | ~50 male students-Swarthmore College,America ~"vision test" ~line judgement task ~Ps 2nd to last with 7 confeds ~confederates->wrong answers ~deceive Ps ~say out loud which line like target line in length ~18 trials, 12'critical’trials-wrong answer |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Results | ~on average: Ps conformed to incorrect answers on 32% of the critical trials ~74% conformed on at least one critical trial ~26% never conformed ~control group without confederates: less than 1% gave an incorrect answer |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Conclusion | ~interviews: Ps knew answers=incorrect but agreed to fit in & avoid ridicule ~judgements of individuals affected by maj opinions even when obviously wrong ~confirms participants conformed due to normative social influence & desire to fit in |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Why did they conform? distortion of action | ~knew giving the wrong answers but didn’t want to stand out ~complied (normative social influence) |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Why did they conform? distortion of perception | ~some Ps thought their perception might be wrong ~informational social influence |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Why did they conform? distortion of judgement | ~some Ps doubted their own judgement so agreed with the majority ~informational social influence |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Strength cue: high in reliability | ~standardised procedures ~laboratory setting ~every P answered second to last ~saw same cards each time ~can be easily replicated ~same results will be found |
| Asch Situational Variables: Task difficulty | Asch made the lines more similar in length to the matching line. ~harder task=higher rate of conformity ~easier task=lower rate of conformity |
| Asch Situational Variables Size of the group (majority) | Asch introduced dif size groups:changed the number of c ~1 c= low con ~2 c=13% con ~3 c=32% con ~more than 3=no effect on con rate ~con increases up to optimal point(3 c) ~very small group=lower con ~large scale group=no further impact after 3 c |
| Asch Situational Variables Unanimity | Asch introduce ‘partner’(gave correct answer)while rest of c gave wrong answer(changes consistency of answers) ~con levels of Ps 32% ->5.5% on average ~unanimous verdict=high con ~disturbed unanimity=con decreases or doesn’t take place |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Weakness cue: unethical -> deception | ~didn't tell Ps true aim- said visual perception ~no informed consent (didn't know aim, insert) ~breach ethical guideline of deception ~however ~little harm ~wouldn’t need counselling ~justified ~risk of distress is small |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Weakness cue: low in ecological validity | ~laboratory experiment ~artificial environment ~artificial/fake tasks (asking Ps to estimate length of lines) ~unrealistic test of conformity ~can’t apply findings to other settings- specifically natural settings and everyday environments |
| Asch 1955 (normative social influence) Other possible evaluation points: | ~population validity ~limited sample ~androcentric: all male ~ethnocentric: all American ~demand characteristics |
| paradigm | a model, pattern, or representative example |
| Factors affecting conformity: Cognitive dissonance | ~definition:mental discomfort experienced by having simultaneously contradictory beliefs/ideas ~example: know you=right but feel you should agree with your friend ~conform to reduce cognitive dissonance, even if goes against beliefs, discomfort=relieved |
| Factors affecting conformity: Mood | ~human will conform more when they are in a good mood ~being happy makes them more willing to agree with others |
| Factors affecting conformity: Culture | ~some cultures conform more ~collectivist cultures are used to making group decisions, so are more likely to be influenced by a group than those from an individualistic culture |
| Factors affecting conformity: Gender | ~research suggests females are more likely to conform than males ~may be because they are socialised into more submissive roles so they are expected to be more conformist |
| Mori and Arai 2010- what is it similar to? | Asch’s study but without demand characteristics and limited sample |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Aim | to reproduce the Asch experiment, but without a need for confederates |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Method | ~40 male,64 fem Japanese undergrads ~same-sex group of 4 ~seat order=random ~line match task ~sunglasses'protect eyes from glare'->shorter or longer comparison line ~18trials,12critical ~questionnaire-suspicions,certainty answer,influenced/confident |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Findings | ~correct sized comparison lines(78 Ps): incorrect 8.2% ~saw different sized comparison lines(26 Ps): answered incorrectly 19.6% of the time ~female minority answered incorrectly 28.6% of the time ~male minority answered incorrectly 5% of the time |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Conclusion | ~no majority laughed at minority: conformity not due to ridicule ~women conformed more than men: cultural or generational difference ~didn’t report suspicions: no demand characteristics |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Strength cue: high reliability | ~used standardised procedures ~every P answered 3rd out of 4 on every trial ~test can be easily replicated ~same results found |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Strength cue: high internal validity | ~Ps didn’t know true aim of the experiment ~[aim] ~no cs used ~unlikely to have demand characteristics ~can’t confound the results ~IV(majority P’s answers on the line length task) caused DV(conformity rates) ~clear cause and effect relationship |
| Mori and Arai 2010 Weakness cue: unethical | ~deception ~avoided telling Ps true aim ~insert aim ~deceived into thinking the sunglasses worn were used to prevent glare(actually for different line length) ~couldn’t give informed consent as they didn’t know aim ~breaches ethical guideline |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Aim | investigate the extent to which people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing simulation of prison life and test dispositional(sadistic personality) versus situational hypotheses(brutal conditions) for prison violence |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Method | 21 male uni students- stable person newspaper advert $15 a day random allocation Z-superintendent Stanford uni=mock prison arrested/fingerprinted/stripped numbered smocks/nylon caps/chain sunglasses/khaki uniform visiting time/parole 2 weeks |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Findings | social roles initial prison 'rebellion' dehumanisation: guards taunting, p submissive deindividuation: referred as prison numbers 36 hrs: 1 released(fits of crying)-3 more prisoners sim symptoms & released 1 p=severe rash when parole ‘denied’ 6 days |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Conclusion | ~situational hypothesis: no characteristic traits before- enviro & social roles led to uncharacteristic behav ~conform readily to social roles even when roles override moral beliefs ~demonstrate social roles from media & learned models of social power |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Weakness cue: ethics | ~breaches ethical guidelines ~deception ~examples: prisoners were arrested at their homes, taken to police station, stripped ~didn’t know would happen ~study failed to receive full informed consent |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Strength cue: applicable -> altered US prisons | ~increases awareness ~examples: juveniles accused of federal crimes are no longer housed before trial with adult prisoners due to the risk of violence seen in the prison setting ~useful for improving society(specifically prison settings) |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Weakness cue: low ecological validity ->controlled observation | ~demand characteristics ~knew aim of the study [aim] ~didn’t act naturally(change behav for screw you effect/please researcher- evident in ‘rebellion’?) ~guards just 'playing role' ~can’t generalise to other settings(e.g. real life/prisons) |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Weakness cue: low population validity | ~21 male American students ~individualistic America ~androcentric: can’t be applied to female prisons ~ethnocentric: can’t be applied to prisons in other countries /cultures (e.g. collectivist) ~can’t be applied to other age groups ~can't generalise |
| Zimbardo 1973 (The Stanford Prison Experiment) Other possible evaluation points | ~ethics: physical/mental harm/humiliation/future anxiety ~Ps: advert (certain characteristics) & paid so couldn’t leave ~high internal validity: standardised procedures, easily replicated |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Aim | if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Method | 40 m Ps newspaper advert $4.50 'punishment & learning' 'random' if teacher & learner word pairs& test recall electric shock if wrong, increase voltage recording:scream/weak heart180v/bang wall300v/silent315v 'experimenter requires you to continue' |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Results | ~65% of Ps continued to the highest level of 450 volts ~all Ps continued to 300 volts |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Conclusion | ordinary people follow orders from authority figure even if kill innocent obedience to authority=ingrained(brought up) obey orders from others if recognise authority is morally right response to legitimate authority=learned,e.g. fam,school,work |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Strength cue: high in reliability | ~used standardised procedures ~all Ps given 45V shock before to authenticate ~reduces demand characteristics ~pre-recorded learner responses ~can be easily replicated ~same results found |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Weakness cue: low ecological validity | ~observation- lab ~artificial enviro ~example: sit Ps in front of voltage machine & ask c questions before moving on or giving the electric shock ~can’t apply findings to other setting(natural/everyday environment) ~not realistic obedience levels |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Weakness cue: breaches ethical guidelines | ~Ps appeared obviously distressed ~sweating, digging nails into their hands ~suggests Ps were psychologically harmed by what they were being asked to do ~suggests study failed to protect participants from harm ~breached ethical guidelines |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Weakness cue: lacks population validity | ~androcentric ~only used 40 males ~can’t be generalised to other genders ~females may be more or less obedient than males ~unrepresentative |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Ethical Considerations Psychological Harm | ~appeared psychologically distressed ~sweating, digging their nails into hands ~long term distressed ~failure to protect |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Ethical Considerations Deception/ Informed Consent | ~Ps told study was about punishment and learning ~heard confederates acting ~can’t give informed consent ~didn’t know truth ~felt embarrassed/upset |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Ethical Considerations Right to Withdraw | ~experimenter told them to carry on ~implied couldn’t leave ~experienced more distress ~didn’t act naturally |
| MILGRAM 1965 (Obedience to Authority) Ethical Considerations Inducement to take part | ~Ps were paid ~made them feel obliged to stay |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Vocal feedback | Learner constantly screamed and pounded on the wall but wasn’t seen. Level of obedience: 65% |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Loss of authority | Experimenter appeared to be an ordinary member of society without wearing the lab coat. Level of obedience: 5% |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Shift of setting | Level of obedience: 47% Experiment was moved from the prestigious Yale university to a run-down office block. |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Close proximity | Level of obedience: 40% Learner moved into same room as teacher. |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Touch proximity | Level of obedience: 30% Teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto a shock plate to administer punishment. |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Absent experimenter | Level of obedience: 21% Experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. |
| Variations of Milgram's Study Social Support | Level of obedience: 10% Real participant was paired with 2 other subjects who refused to obey. |
| Hofling (1966) Aim | see whether nurses in public and private psychiatric hospitals in the USA would obey an order that violated hospital rules and professional practice |
| Hofling (1966) Method | ~nurse received phone call from a doctor she knew worked at the hospital but had never met ~ask give 20mg Astroten before he arrived ~violated several rules: dose=too high(twice recommended max dose)/written authority must be obtained/unfamiliar person |
| Hofling (1966) Results | ~21 out of 22 nurses started to give the medication and put up little resistance during the phone calls ~after: the nurses were interviewed and said they obeyed the order because in the past doctors became annoyed when questioned |
| Hofling (1966) Conclusion | ~power and authority of doctors was a greater influence on nurse’s behaviour than basic hospital rules ~what people say they will do, can vary from what they will actually do |
| Hofling (1966) STRENGTH cue: high in ecological validity | ~natural setting (hospital) ~real nurses that worked in the hospitals ~can generalise findings to other settings, specifically real life hospital environments |
| Hofling (1966) WEAKNESS cue: contradictory evidence -> Rank and Jacobsen (1997) | ~weak internal validity ~same as H but:Australia/irregular order/16/18 refused ~contradictory obedience levels ~Hofling’s research=invalid? But in R&J: drug=familiar(valium)/nurses allowed to consult with peers/<factors make independent behaviour |
| Hofling (1966) WEAKNESS cue: unethical | ~none of the 22 nurses were told they were taking part or the aim ~[insert aim] ~deception ~couldn’t give informed consent as didn’t know aim ~breaches ethical guidelines |
| Berger (2009) Aim | develop a variation of Milgram’s procedures to allow comparison of the original investigation while protecting the well-being of the participants |
| Berger (2009) Method | sim M(same words in test&lab coat) 70 m & f Ps->didn't know Ms study/no history of mental illness or stress reactions(got rid of 38% og sample) max shock=150V told 3 times can withdraw 15V@start experimenter=clinical psychologist(stop if stressed) |
| Berger (2009) Results | ~obedience rate of 70% ~little difference between male and female rates ~defiant Ps had a higher score on desire of control(106.92) than obedient(98.24) ~no significant difference between empathetic concern between defiant Ps(19.25) and obedient(19.2) |
| Berger (2009) Conclusion | ~possible to replicate Milgram’s study in a non-harmful manner ~obedience rates haven’t changed dramatically since Milgram’s study |
| Berger (2009) WEAKNESS cue: unethical | ~deception ~avoided telling Ps the true aim [insert aim] ~Ps couldn’t give informed consent as didn’t know aim ~breached ethical guidelines |
| Berger (2009) STRENGTH cue: high reliability | ~used standardised procedures ~e.g. 15V shock before to convince them of authenticity ~can be easily replicated ~same results found(similar rates of obedience as Milgram’s) |
| Berger (2009) WEAKNESS cue: low ecological validity | ~laboratory setting ~artificial environment and tasks ~e.g. asking Ps in front of a voltage machine with volts between 15 and 150V to ask questions before moving on or giving a shock ~can’t apply findings to other settings, like everyday life |
| Berger (2009) STRENGTH cue: high population validity | ~large range: 70 Ps ~not androcentric: males and females ~more confidence in applying results to other people ~more representative and generalisable sample |
| Situational Variables affecting obedience Proximity | ~awareness of consequences of actions if obey authority figure ~M:small distance between teacher & learner, can't ‘divorce’ from consequences ~close prox(same room): see distress, obedience=40% ~touch prox(move hand onto shock plate): obedience=30% |
| Situational Variables affecting obedience Location | ~affect perceived authority ~locations with perceived legitimacy of authority figure=higher obedience ~institutionalised settings(e.g. army)=high obedience ~M: Yale university: obedience = 62.5% run-down office block: obedience = 47% |
| Situational Variables affecting obedience Uniforms | ~uniform gives perception of added legitimacy to authority figures when delivering orders, obedience up ~M: lab coat: o=62.5%/no coat: o = 5% ~Bickman: ordered Ps pick up rubbish, loan money & move away from bus stop security: o = 38% milkman: o = 14% |
| fascism | far right governmental system led by a dictator having a complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism emphasising an aggressive nationalism and often racism |
| EVALUATION OF AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: STRENGTH: experimental support from Milgram | ~Elms & Milgram found Ps in M’s study who were highly obedient=more authoritarian on the F-scale than disobedient Ps ~shows strong support to the authoritarian personality explanation to obedience as it links personality to levels of obedience |
| EVALUATION OF AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: WEAKNESS: doesn’t explain how whole social groups can be obedient | ~the theory would suggest whole numbers of a group, e.g. Nazis, have an authoritarian personality → highly unlikely ~using the F-scale/authoritarian personality assumption to explain obedience may be invalid and may not reflect obedience in large groups |
| EVALUATION OF AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: WEAKNESS: reductionist theory | ~only looks at 1 explanation of obedience ~e.g.all obedient people score high on F-scale & all people that score highly on the F-scale=obedient(not always true) ~doesn’t accept other reasons e.g.agency theory(situational) ~ignores factors |
| Elms and Milgram (1966) Aim | to see if the obedient participants in Milgram’s research were more likely to display authoritarian personality traits, in comparison to disobedient participants |
| Elms and Milgram (1966) Method | ~20 obedient(full 450V) & 20 disobedient(refuse to continue) ~personality questionnaires including F-scale ~open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents and relationship with the experimenter and learner during Milgram’s experiment |
| Elms and Milgram (1966) Results | ~obedient Ps scored higher on the F scale than disobedient ~obedient participants were less close to their fathers during childhood and admired the experimenter- opposite for disobedient |
| Elms and Milgram (1966) Conclusion | ~obedient Ps in original research displayed higher levels of the authoritarian personality in comparison to disobedient |
| independent behaviour | involves the rejection of social influence to behave in accordance with one’s own internal attitudes, regardless of whether they coincide with the majority (they resist the pressures to conform and/or obey) |
| DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS: resisting obedience Milgram Legitimacy of authority | Uniform: • With lab coat: 37.5% independent behaviour • No lab coat: 95% independent behaviour • Lab coat gives experimenter authority • Without lab coat the experimenter is no longer perceived as an authority figure |
| DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS: resisting obedience Milgram Social support | 2 additional confederates playing roles of teachers: • 2 confederates refused to go on and withdrew from the experiment early • Real Ps that refused to go to 450V= 90% • If they had support for disobedience they would |
| DISPOSITIONAL FACTORS: resisting obedience Milgram Proximity | Close proximity: -teacher and learner in same room -teacher could see learner’s distress -40% obedience -close proximity = more independent Touch proximity: -put hand onto the shock plate -30% obedience -took more responsibility |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Locus of control (LoC) | • internal LoC: internal aspects control your behaviour/destiny • external LoC: external aspects control behaviour/destiny • it’s a spectrum, not either or |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Locus of control (LoC) STRENGTH: supporting evidence ~Schute (1975) | ~undergraduates ~peers expressed either conservative(traditional/anti-drug) or liberal(modernised/more accepting) views towards drug taking ~internal LoC=less likely to conform to ideas against original beliefs |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Locus of control (LoC) WEAKNESS: too simplistic explanation | ~neglects to consider the wider role of situational factors ~[insert explanation of specific situational factors increasing/decreasing independent behaviour] ~reductionist ~only dispositional factors influencing independent behaviour (internal LoC) |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Locus of control (LoC) STRENGTH: supporting evidence ~Moghaddam (1998) | ~meta-analysis of conformity research ~Japanese people=more conforming as a race than Americans ~J: higher external locus of control than other nationalities(Rutter et al’s personality questionnaire) ~LoC can explain independent behaviour or conformity |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Systematic processing | ~more time to consider consequences=less likely to obey ~institutional settings e.g.military, orders complied with immediately(no time to think in conflict) ~Martin et al:Ps encouraged & allowed to consider content of order, less likely to obey |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Morality | ~those that make decisions on o based on moral considerations = more resistant to o ~M: -disobedient figure=vicar -interview: states that disobeyed as had been ‘obeying a higher authority’ -his religious morality helped him resist the authority figure |
| Dispositional factors for independent behaviour Personality | ~empathetic=higher o ~Oliner & Oliner: 406 people who sheltered Jews in Nazi Europe or lived through the war & didn’t shelter Jews -rescued: upbringing emphasise help others →emphasised with Jewish people -personality help resist destructive obedience |
| minority influence | type of social influence that motivates individuals to reject established majority group norms ~achieved through the process of conversion: ~the majority internalises the belief of the original minority, so it is accepted publicly and privately |
| process of conversion | majorities won over by minority viewpoint |
| social cryptomnesia | when people have a memory that change has occurred but don’t actually remember how it has happened ~referred to as a snowball effect due to the minority slowly building up strength and pace gaining status and power |
| MINORITY INFLUENCE CONSISTENCY meaning | Minority must be unchanging in their message in order for it to be persuasive to the majority |
| MINORITY INFLUENCE Why is consistency important? | -members of the majority will take more notice -impression=minority are convinced they are right & committed -self confidence & dedication to their viewpoint -disrupts established norms & create uncertainty, doubt and conflict |
| MINORITY INFLUENCE COMMITMENT | • Consistency makes people think the minority are committed to their message • Important if the minority have made a sacrifice with their message ~for example: they have received public abuse about their views |
| MINORITY INFLUENCE FLEXIBILITY | • Minorities who are inflexible and uncompromising in their beliefs are not persuasive • If minorities are flexible, it demonstrates an ability to cooperate and be reasonable with their messages = more persuasive |
| Moscovici (1969) Aim | investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority through a rerun of Asch’s experiment but reversed and using 2 confederates with 4 genuine participants |
| Moscovici (1969) Method | • Eye tests to check not colour-blind • 2Cs with 4Ps • 36 slides with different shades of blue • State colour out loud • Condition 1: C answered green for all • Condition 2: C answered green for 24 and blue 12 |
| Moscovici (1969) Results | • Condition 1: 8.42% said green • Condition 2: 1.25% said green • 32% said green at least once |
| Moscovici (1969) Conclusion | Minorities can influence a majority but not all the time and only when they behave in certain ways |
| Moscovici (1969) STRENGTH cue: high reliability | • Standardised procedures: every P sat in a group of 6, saw same slides, eye test • Easily replicated • Same results would be found • Reliable |
| Moscovici (1969) WEAKNESS cue: low ecological validity | • Laboratory setting • Artificial environment • Artificial task: Ps judged the colour of slides • Can’t apply findings to other settings(specifically more natural settings) |
| Moscovici (1969) WEAKNESS: cue: unethical | • Used deception • Avoided telling Ps the true aim of the experiment [insert aim] • Not told the aim of the study as confederates are the minority • No informed consent • Breaches ethical guidelines |
| Nemeth (1986) Aim | investigate the influence of perceived autonomy and consistency on minority influence |
| Nemeth (1986) Method | ~lab ~mock trial ~Ps in groups of 5: 1 in group=c ~decide amount of compensation for victim of injury ~individ verdict ~other room with table: ~c(end of the table &argued for $3000)-chose/put there ~Ps suggested $10000 - 25000 |
| Nemeth (1986) Results | • Confederate exerts influence when he is: ~consistent(sat at the head of the group) ~autonomous(chose own seat) |
| Nemeth (1986) Conclusion | • Interesting repercussions for the jury room • minority(confederate) influenced the majority(participants |
| social change | involves the way in which society develops, through big shifts in people’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviour |
| Martin, Hewstone & Martin (2007) | used in resistance to persuasive messages as a function of m& min status SUPPORT MIN INFLUENCE: ~findings consistent that maj & min lead to dif processes & consequences under dif situations ~min influence=greater influence than originally thought |
| Martin, Hewstone & Martin (2007) Aim | to see if opinions given by minority or majority group influence are more resistant to conflicting opinions |
| Martin, Hewstone & Martin (2007) Method | ~48 British Uni stud ~2 messages ~Message 1: arguments against euthanasia, through min or maj ~Message 2: counter attitudinal message which conflict with the original(6 statements for euthanasia) ~measure attitudes after the presentation of both |
| Martin, Hewstone & Martin (2007) Results | ~attitudes following minority support for the pro-attitudinal message were more resistant to change following the counter-attitudinal message than if the pro-attitudinal message was given majority support |
| Martin, Hewstone & Martin (2007) Conclusion | ~min influence creates systematic processing of it’s viewpoints ~leads to strong attitudes that are resistant to counter-persuasion ~supports moscovici’s idea that the opinion of mins are subject to a higher level of processing than that of the majs |
Created by:
jessharris
Popular Psychology sets