45634
| Question | Answer |
| Social Change | >Society adopts new belief or behaviour which becomes accepted as the ‘norm’. >Social change can positive or negative. |
| Minority Influence | Form of social influence where people reject the established norm of the majority of group members and move to the position of the minority |
| Outline the finding by Moscovici | > Minorities are also capable of social change. > If individual is exposed to persuasive argument under certain conditions, they may change own views to match the minority. > Called this “conversion” > A prerequisite of social change. |
| Conditions necessary for social change | >Drawing attention to an issue >The role of conflict >Consistency >The augmentation principle |
| Insights from Milgram’s research into obedience | >Experiment moved away from Yale University to a downtown office, more people felt able to resist authority - Status is key factor in obedience/resistance >Resistance increased when the victim could be seen / when other confederates were present - Shows that awareness of the effects of actions and having social support help increase resistance |
| Explain research by Kohlberg | >Presented group of Milgram’s ppts with set of imaginary moral dilemmas. >Dilemmas determined not what people would do in situations, but why they would behave that way. >Found those who based decisions on more general moral principles were more defiant in Milgram’s study >Those at a more restricted level of moral development obeyed the experimenter completely |
| High internal locus of control | A person believes their behaviour is caused by their own personal decisions and efforts. So it is within their control |
| High external locus of control | A person believes their behaviour is caused mainly by fate, luck or other circumstances beyond their control |
| Explain the research by Twenge et al | >Meta-analysis – Young Americans believe their lives are controlled by outside forces than own behaviour. >Studies found more external locus of control in students and children between 1960 and 2002. >Suggests implications are uniformly negative – external negatively correlated with poor school achievement, decreased self-control and depression |
| Explain the research by Allen and Levine | >No support - participant conformed to majority influence. >Social support but of poor quality (invalid) – supporter had poor eyesight – participant still conformed less to the majority than when no support. Social support of good quality (valid) – supporter had normal eyesight – participant very likely to resist conforming to majority view |
| Evaluate insights of Asch's research into conformity | >Physical Reality – Artificial task meaning levels of conformity increases >Moral Judgement – Conformity as it has an effect on the ppt. >Hornsey et al (2003) – Little movement to majority on attitudes that had moral significance for individual even when in involved public behaviours |
| Why do people obey | >Role of Buffers - Tendency to obey experimenter – less obedience when victim was present - Victim in same room buffering is reduced - Teacher protected (buffered) from the victim (learner) >Gradual Commitment - Ppts give low-level shock – harder to resist requirement to increase shocks - Ppts found it hard to change their minds about shocks - Foot-in-Door method of persuasion >Agentic Shift - State a person is in when they see themselves acting as a agent for carrying out another person’s wishes >Justifying Obedience - Ppts gave the shocks because science required it - By offering ideologies people are willing to surrender their freedom believing they are serving a justifiable cause |
| Evaluate reasons of obedience | >Monocausal - Mandel - Argued that by focusing on obedience Milgram ignored many other explanations, such as anti- semitism. >Was the agentic shift in Milgram’s experiment as strong as that in the Holocaust? >'Obedience alibi” act as an excuse for actions rather than a justification |
| What is obedience | Behaving as instructed, usually in response to individual. Usually takes place in a hierarchy where the person issuing the order is of higher status. |
| Outline Milgram's study | > Two confederates - one as experimenter and one as learner > Ppt was teacher - 40 male ppts > If learner said inccorect answer they were given an electric shock which increased everytime. > 65% ppts went to 450 volts - all went to 300 volts - 5 stopped at 300 volts |
| Outline the study by Sheridan and King | >Hypothesized some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking > Repeated the experiment with a puppy who was given real electric shocks > They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end > Six that had refused to comply were all male > 54% of males were obedient - all 13 of the women obeyed to the end. |
| Normative Social Influence | Humans are social species that have a need for companionship and fear of rejection. Going against majority isn't easy. Wanting to be liked and to be part of the group. |
| Evaluate the Normative Social Influence | Garandeau and Cillessen - Groups with low quality interpersonal friendships may be manipulated by skilful bully. Creates pressure as children in the group don't want to be cast out |
| Informational Social Influence | Wanting to be right. Agreeing because we believe others are correct |
| When is Informational Social Influence most likely to occur. | Situation is a crisis. Situation is ambiguous. Believing others are experts |
| Evaluate Informational Social Influence | Witterbrink and Henly - Ppts exposed to negative comparison information about African Americans (believed was view of majority). Reported more negative beliefs about black target individual. Ppts assumed comparison group had more knowledge. Fein et al - Judgements of candidate performance of US presidential debates. Influenced by knowledge than reactions. Ppts saw reaction of fellow ppts on screen during debate. Large shifts in ppt judgement of candidates performance. |
| Social Impact Theory | Latane - Number - Stops at a point - Asch > conformity up to 3 or 4 confederates, not beyond. - Immediacy - More likely to listen to speaker when in small group. - Strength - More important people=More influence |
| Evaluate the Social Impact Theory | Sedikides and Jackson - High strength and immediacy had more impact than low strength and immediacy |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.