Social Influence Evaluations

Explanations of conformity AO1

Define conformity, internalization, compliance, normative social influence and informational social influence, and when NSI and ISI occur.

Above all discuss about NSI and ISI

Explanations of conformity AO3

P1: Strength of NSI, Linkenbach and Perkins, kids told majority peers didn't smoke, less smoked. Majority has influence, people want to fit in. Shultz et al: hotel guests told majority guests reuse towels, towel usage dropped 25%. People shape behaviour out of desire to fit in. 

P2: Strength of ISI, Lucas et al, did maths problems alone then relied on others when they didn’t know the answers. People want to be correct, genuinely believe others correct when correct answer unkown to them. Also, Wittenbrick and Henley did study, pps told negative things about African Americans by majority, then more said negative thing about a black person. Thus, majority has impact on conformity, ISI valid: research evidence. 

P3: Limitation NSI, doesn’t account for individual differences. high nAffiliators need affiliation and will confrom more than low nAffiliators. Problem as, NSI not a universal predictor for conformity. Mcghee and Teevan, student nAffiliators more conformist. Thus, NSI not universally applicable as conformity explanation.  

Variables Affecting conformity AO1

Describe study, in 36.8% of critical trials pp got an answer wrong (conformed), describe how three variations done (group size, unanimity, task difficulty) and effects on conformity rate, A = 1=3.5% 2=14% 3=31.8% 4= no difference, B = 25%, C = conformity increase.

Variables affecting conformity AO3

P1: Limitation, child of its time, Mcarthyist USA, non conformist communist fear. Conformity rates in study inflated, lacks temporal validity. Perrin and Spencer, repeated Asch study, with probation youths and their parole officers as confederates, similar conformity rates. Conformity only higher in high stress situations. Thus, Asch effect not consistent over time. 

P2: Limitation, artificial setting, pps aware of research, acted as they thought researcher wanted, demand characteristics. Problem as lower external validity, less generalisable. Line task trivial, no point conforming and groups of pps didn’t resemble groups seen in everyday life. So findings was single event, inapplicable to real life scenarios. Thus, Asch findings are not generalisable and not usable in psychological learning. 

P3: Limitation, limited application, 123 American men pps only. Not representative of women or other nationalities. Women more conformist due to concerns with social acceptance. Smith et al analysed Asch type studies worldwide. Collectivist cultues such as USA has higher conformity than individualistic cultures in europe (37% -> 25%). Not generalisable to all groups, conformity rates differ for groups. 

Situational variables on obedience AO1

Obedience defintion, milgram study outlined, outline variables and how done: proximity (65% same room-> 30% touch->20.5% remote), location 65% -> 47.5%, uniform 65% -> 20%. 

Situational variables on obedience AO3

P1: Strength replicated in other cultures. Meevs and raaijmakers had Dutch men and women say stressful things to fake interviewee. 90% obeyed. Milgram's conclusion of obedience not limited to only American men. However. Smith and Bond argue replications done only in developed Western societies. 2 milgram style studies in 17 years only in India and Jordan. Thus premature to conclude Milgram's findings on proximity, location, and uniform on obedience apply universally. 

P2: Limitation. Orne and Holland. Lacks internal validity. Milgram didn't test what he intended. Problems as PP didn't believe shocks were real, just went along with it, displaying demand characteristics rather than genuine obedience. However, Milgram argued 75% of PP's stated belief in. The reality of shocks. Clear video evidence proved distress which wouldn't occur. If they didn't believe it was real. Sheridan and King had PPs shock puppies, 54% men and 100% women gave a supposed fatal shock. Thus, Milgram study effects genuine as people behaved obediently even when shocks are real. 

P3: Limitation Alibi for evil behaviour. Mandel's offensive to Holocaust survivors. Problem is people overlooked severity of acts in Holocaust masked by Nazis following orders and being victims of situational factors beyond their control. Making them seem to not be accountable for actions. In the real world, this can't happen anymore. Some professions can't plead obedience for wrong decisions, such as soldiers in Abu Ghraib, who tortured prisoners. Claiming they followed orders. Thus, people are encouraged to question authority, legitimacy before obedience. 

Legitimacy of authority and agentic state as explanations of obedience AO1

Obedience definition, agentic state definition, frees us from demands of conscience. Agents aren't unfeeling puppets. Experience moral strain. Legitimacy of authority. Definition. Legitimate legitimacy of authority allow society to run. Smoothly.

Legitimacy of authority and agentic state as explanations of obedience AO3

P1: Limitation, research evidence shows authority and agentic shift doesn't explain Nazi behaviour. Mandel describes incident where German reservists shot civilians with no direct orders. Lifton found doctors working in Auschwitz changed from being caring to the patients to doing vile acts on prisoners. Challenges agentic state explanation suggests some do atrocities by their own accord. Thus, agentic state isn't complete explanation for obedience. 

P2: Strength. Legitimacy, authority, useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Supports research Kilhamm and mann who replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found 16% of PPS went to Max voltage, Mantell replication in Germany, 85%. Shows some cultures authority is more accepted as legitimate and more demanding of obedience. Societies are structured differently and children taught to perceive authority differently. Legitimacy of authority valid. 

P3: Limitation of legitimacy of authority. Doesn't explain instances of disobedience in hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. Rank and Jacobson found nurses disobedient when told to administer overdose of Valium while working in hierarchical authority structure. Problem as authority, legitimate individuals can disobey. Suggests factors like ethical concerns, confidence in one's own profession, and judgment may play a role in obedience. Thus legitimately authority too simplistic in isolation as an explanation of obedience. 

Authoritarian personality as explanation of obedience AO1

Obedience definition. Authoritarian personality definition. Others are ills of society. Modern society, worse now than before, need respected leaders. No grayness on ideologies, dispositional explanation. Differ from situational factors.

Authoritarian personality as explanation of obedience AO3

P1: Strength evidence. Milgram and Elms used Adornos F scale and MMPI personality test comparing 20 obedient and 20 disobedient PPS from study of Milgram. Results show obedient PP scored higher on F scale. Altemeyer measured authoritarianism using reliable valid scale, RWA, found positive correlation between authoritarianism and obedience. Suggests link between authoritarian personality and obedience. Thus plays a role in obedience. 

P2: Limitation limited in explanation. Can't apply to whole population in terms of personality. Millions in Germany of differing personalities displayed obedient anti-Semitic behavior. Unlikely all of authoritarian personality. Problem as suggests, dispositional explanations don't account for how millions displayed same obedience during Holocaust. However, alternative explanations such as social identity theory, more realistic, suggests people behave like others in social group as they identify with group. Thus, an explanation of obedience purely based on authoritarianism lacks flexibility for accounting for other explanations. 

P3: Limitation, direction of causation and clear correlation only between obedience and personality of. Authoritarianism. Adorno and colleagues measured many variables and found many strong correlations. But no matter how strong a correlation, it's not a cause. Problem is makes impossible to conclude authoritarianism causes obedience. Adornos research suggests strict parenting causes authoritarianism. Many factors could have caused authoritarianism however, not just strict parenting, so variables linked. Thus authoritarianism isn't direct cause of obedience and dispositional explanations could be limited as other factors could cause. Authoritarian personalities as opposed to strict parenting. 

Resistance to social influence AO1

Definition of resistance to social influence. Social support definition. Locus of control definition. Social support helps resist conformity. Explain. Helps resist obedience. Explain internal externalism, Opposite ends of continuum, internal LOC resist more.

Resistance to social influence AO3

P1: Strength of social support. Albrecht study of pregnant teens with buddies being less likely to smoke than those without buddy. Supports how? Social support helps boost confidence and independence in decision making. Thus, social support helps resist social influence. Gamson Et al studied Dissenting. Peers in resisting obedience. Pps told to make false evidence smear campaign but in groups so disobedience rate of 88%. The social support leads to disobedience or resistance to pressure, causing more resistance to social influence. 

P2: Strength LOC Holland study replicated Milgram based study measured PP internal or external. 37% internal didn't go Max voltage, 23% externals. Internals show greater resistance to authority. However, Twenge analyzed data from American LOC studies over 40 year. Over time, people more resistant to social influence but also more external, Thus internal LOC may not cause more resistance. So further research needed to provide a clearer understanding of LOC in resisting social influence. 

P3: Limitation. LOC rotter states only applicable in new/novel situations, Little influence in the familiar situations. Previous experiences more important in behaviour impact. Problem. suggests people who conform or obey in past situations will do again even if they're with high internal LOC. However, Autgis did meta analysis on studies researching link between LOC and social influence found externals more conformist than high scoring internals. Thus, research into LOC's link in social influence is contradictory, so it's limited in ability to explain social influence.

Role of minority influence in social change AO1

Minority influence definition, consistency definition and effectiveness. Same for commitment and flexibility. Balance needed, social change definition. 

Role of minority influence in social change AO3

P1: Consistency, strength. Moscovici's study of pps and stating slide green or blue more conformed when 2 Confederate minority were consistent in wrong answer. Wood et al did meta analysis of 100 similar studies, consistent minorities seen as most influential. So consistency effects minority influence. However, other factors supported by evidence Martin et al study where PP is told view by minority, other group by majority. contradicting view introduced those told by minority less likely to change view minority view process deeper more enduring effect thus minority influence it's not only supported by consistency but also deeper analysis of views and other factors. 

P2: Limitation, Trivial and artificial tasks. Limited in application to real life situations. Tasks in real life very different from tasking studies such as aschs line comparison. EG jury decision making consequences more severe. Whether they listen to majority/minority then varies. Problem as, findings of minority studies lack external validity such as Moscovici and limited in what you can tell us about how minority influence works in real life social situations. This research into this isn't useful, not reflective of how minority and practice sessions in the more severe situations less applicable to real-world can't fully understand  minority influence.  

P3: Limitation indirectly effective social change takes years to happen. At that point, minority not fully responsible for change, Nemeth argues. Effects of minority indirect and delayed, indirect as majority influenced on situation at hand not core problem. Delayed as effects aren't seen for a long time. Problem as reduced his usefulness of minority influence as explanation for real world social change, and lacks power and immediacy, unlike other forms of social influence. Thus minority influence limited in explanation of social change as effects fragile and role in social influence very limited.