SI essay plan

Question 1

Zimbardo social roles

Answer 1

• Orlando 1973 mock ward n improvments made to clinics as a result then link to Z study n say unexpected results n can explain real life occurrences eg abu ghraib n improvements could be made to
  prisons
• further supported by high internal validity cos screened
• contrast w ecological validity cos no real prison can leave anytime supported by Banuazizi n movahedi 1975 play acting n rioting was stereotype
• counter w McDermmot 2019 prison talk 90% n one believed real n then if not real why stressed
  then say seems high valid n can explain social roles

Question 2

milgram shock

Answer 2

• no Eco validity by orne said no context n can’t generalise
• contrast w Hofling hospital n say M idea can be generalised
• contrast w low internal validity Orne n holland said they’re play acting n didn’t believe real
• support that perry 1/2 believed real n demand then counter w why did feel anxiety n 2 have seizures

Question 3

Explanations of obedience

Answer 3

• agentic shift
  support is milgrams own study agentic shift w lab coat etc n then further support M said can explain real occurrences eg village lao
• legitimacy of authority
  •irl examples of nazi n then support w Hofling believved dr authority over nurse
  •contrast w doesn’t explain why even when authority believed why 35% ppl in M study didn’t shock n then support w Mandel 1998 holocaust

Question 4

dispositional obedience

Answer 4

ardono et al 1950
2k interviews authority personality n f-scale

support
- elms n milgram 1966 they found obedient in shock high on f scale
- counter closer analysis those man didn’t have many traits associated w autho perso eg glorify dads or hostile to mum
so maybe correlation bw perso n obedience but not causation
- further counter of theory is hella germans didn’t have same perso n then support this by deterministic acting like eveurone w autho perso obedient n other factors important too so gotta consider them to get better understanding

Question 5

resistance to SI: social
support

Answer 5

• social support:
  •Asch line study unanimous variation n then say further support is Allen n Levine 1971
  •Milgram 2 confs didn’t obey n so 10% went full shock compared to 65% in original
• lab experiments so high internal n EV controlled so can say results cos of lack of unanimity and social support
• counter w low eco n cant generalise these cos lab
  but counter that w ideas are correct cos can explain irl examples like nazis arresting men n wives helping them release or rosa parks

Question 6

resistance to SI: Locus of control

Answer 6

Rotter 1966 identified

• high internal LOC control of own lives responsible for own actions n consequence n make actions according to info available n not conform

• high external LOC look to others for help n direction n not responsible for actions n consequences cos feel life controlled by external factors eg luck or fate

• support from Holland variation of milgram n found internals 37% refused shock n 23% external refused full shock supports LOC affects resisting obedience
• counter that w but it’s lab n can’t generalise cos low eco but counter w below irl example
• irl Support is from Shute 1975 students internals unlikely to conform to being pos about taking drugs compared to externals. shows LOC does affect resistance to SI
• counter that w extent to which LOC affects SI limited: Twenge et al less obedient now but yg americans believe other factors control life
  n then say cos contradictory research there maybe correlation bw LOC n conformity but no cause n effect cos other variables affect behaviour so conclusions can’t be drawn

Question 7

minority influence

Answer 7

Moscovici et al 1969 colour study w women

• high internal valid cos lab n EV controlled so can say results cos of minority influence
• counter limitation is low eco validity cos lab w no context n consequence like irl minority situs do eg can say islam prophet hurt n stuff
• female sample can’t generalise to men may act diff so can’t generalise results
• but counter that w tho female sample his study gave right ideas n support w Wood 1994 found consistency important.
• explain consistency
• flexibility
• commitment (augmentation principle)

Question 8

Social change from minority influence

Answer 8

Moscovici majority influence needs compliance n minority needs internalisation which may take while cos going against status quo can appear wrong consistency will show they’re serious n then ppl will question owns views n validation process happens could accept or reject

Nemeth stated minority influence opens mind n 5 stages that being social change

1. Attention to issue
2. consistency
3. Deeper processing
4. Augmentation principle
5. Snowball effect

Limitation:
- most evidence supporting this from lab studies eg Asch n Moscovici so trivial no consequence tasks like irl minority examples so weakens extent it can explain social change
- counter w irl examples have shown these steps work n led to massive change n innovation eg suffregates n women can now vote