Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Outline Locus of Control
|
- Developed by Rotter 1966 - Explains why people resist pressures to conform. - Refers to how much a person believes that they have control over successes, failures & events in their lives. - Dispositional explanation- personality dimension. - Has 2 extremes of locus of control: internal & external, depends on where they are on the continuum. |
|
|
|
Explain Internal Locus of Control
|
When a person believes their behaviour is mainly caused by their own personal decisions & efforts.
|
|
|
|
Explain External Locus of Control
|
A person believes their behaviour is caused mainly by luck, fate or other external circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Which type of Locus of Control is more likely to resist social pressures and why?
|
- Internal LoC - They believe the have control over their own personal decisions so are able to challenge what they disagree in & take personal responsibility. - More self-confident |
|
|
|
Strength of LoC: Supporting Evidence for the Role of LoC in Explaining how People Resist the Pressures to Obey Authority.
|
- Elms & Milgram set out to investigate the disobedient patients from his study, by follow up interviews w/ a sample of pp's. - Disobedient pp's had high internal LoC & scored highly on social responsibility scale. - Therefore appears that locus of control & social responsibility more important factors in individual's ability to disobey orders or defy social norms. |
- Elms & Milgram set out to investigate the... - What did disobedient pp's score highly on & what type of LoC. - ....are major factors in an individuals ability to... |
|
|
Strength of LoC: Supporting Evidence for the Link Between Conformity & LoC
|
- Avtgis conducted a meta-analysis on conformity studies, such as Asch. - Found those who scored higher on external LoC were more easily persuaded & more likely to conform than those w/ low score. - Average correlation was 0.37, low but statistically significant. -Shows higher rates of conformity w/ those that have an external rather than internal LoC. |
- Avtgis, meta analysis - What did he find? - Average correlation = 0.37... - What does it show? |
|
|
Limitation of LoC: LoC is related to NSI not ISI
|
- Spector measured LoC & normative/informational influence. - From 157 undergrads studied, found significant +ve correlation between external LoC & NSI, more likely to conform. - However, external LoC didn't affect conformity to ISI. - Shows importance of distinguishing normative from ISI (= criticism of Avtgis findings). |
- Spector measured.. - 157 undergrads, what did he find? Correlation? - External LoC didn't affect what? - Shows importance of... |
|
|
Limitation of LoC: Methodological Criticism
|
- LoC had been typically been assessed using the Rotter Scale - was a 23 item forced choice scale. - Consists of pairs of statements for each item the respondent is asked to indicate which of 2 more closely fits to their views. - Self-report study, so problem of social desirability bias. - Feel the need to say right thing to please researcher. - Casts doubt on validity of categorisation of respondents into internal or external types. |
- What was used to assess LoC? - What was this? - What did it consist of? - Self-report stud, so what problem? - What does this mean? - Why is this a problem.
|
|
|
What is the affect of social support on resisting obedience?
|
- The presence of others who disobey (disobedient role models) can reduce obedience. - Disobedient role model empowers observer to also disobey. - Having a disobedient role model who resists pressures challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure. |
|
|
|
What is the affect of social support on resisting conformity?
|
- Presence of support makes it easier to resist social pressure. - Makes individual feels more confident so more likely reject majority position. - Having an ally/role models, who shares individual's view, breaks unanimity. - This frees up others to think, respond & behave in a diff. way from majority. |
|
|
|
Strength of social support & resisting social influence: Supporting evidence for the role of conformity when resisting social influence
|
- Asch found having social support helps individuals resist conformity pressures from majority. - Conformity dropped dramatically to 5.5% when one ally confed gave correct answer = resisted majority. - Also, showed that if 'non-conforming' confederate start to conform again so does naïve pp. - Effects of dissent are not long-lasting. |
- What did Asch find? - What did conformity drop to? - If 'non-conforming' confed strts to conform again what happens? - What does it show of the effects of dissent. |
|
|
Strength of social support& resisting social influence: Supporting evidence for obedience research
|
- From variation of Milgram's experiment, when pp was one of a team of 3 testing the learner. - Presence of 2 disobedient confeds who refused to shock learner & withdrew, sufficient to encourage disobedience. - Only 10% of naïve pp's continued to max 450v. - Defiance of confeds had liberating effect on real pp's to disobey. |
- From variation of Milgram's experiment.. - Presence of 2 disobedient confeds who... - What % went to max volts? - Defiance of confeds had what effect? |
|
|
Limitation of social support & resisting social influence: There is a weakness of the original conformity explanation.
|
- Seating position of the person offering the social support is shown to make a difference to behaviour of naïve pp. - Allen & Levine in their 'Asch' type research, found when confed answered first, giving correct answer then followed by incorrect confeds, effect on the naïve pp was it allowed them to give correct answer. - Correct 'first' answer serves to confirm naïve pp's own judgement & endures when they are later exposed to more incorrect responses. - Seating position was not originally identified as a variable in Asch's original study. |
- Seating position of the person offering social support is shown... - Allen & Levine in their 'Asch'... - What does the correct 'first' pp confirm?
|
|
|
Limitation of social support & resisting social influence: Allen & Levine examined how the source of social support can affect conformity rates.
|
- They compared 2 conditions, one where confed had thick lenses & one where confed had normal eyesight. - Test involved visual discrimination & so confed w/ glasses would provide 'invalid' social support. - Both conditions involving an ally reduced levels of conformity but more so in condition w/ 'valid' confed. - Appears having an ally appears to help others to resist conformity but particularly if ally offers 'valid' social support. |
- Compared 2 condition... - What did the test involve? Invalid social support? - What was found in both conditions? - What does it show about having ally? |
