social infleunce A03

Question 1

explanations of conformity A03

Answer 1

(AO1 on NSI)

strength - research support by Asch

confederate majority unanimously gave incorrect answers to Q’s.
pps publicly spoke, then privately wrote down their answers.
correct answers = obvious
when in presence of majority 75% knowingly answered incorrectly (confirmed)

supports idea that a majority creates a pressure causing minority to conform.

results confirm that NSI causes compliance since most pps only changed their public views.
HOWEVER…
results cannot be applied to todays America, or cross-culturally.

study conducted in anti-communist period. propaganda caused mass fear of communists and people feared being labelled as one. This made Americas culture more collectivist, meaning the communities perception is more important. Due to cultural change, cant be applied to America today, or do individualist cultures.

is ISI a better explanation? - doesn’t rely on group pressure, so applicable cross-culturally

(ISI AO1)

strength- variation of asch found to support ISI

highly ambiguous maths problems
conformed highly in public and private answers. if NSI only explanation, no private conformity.
highly standardised, high control
high ambiguity in presence of maj = min internalising maj views.
proves ISI as sep

criticism - neither ISI or NSI explain all pp beh in their supporting studies

conformity never reached 100%.
both only consider situational variables (singularly used to explain far less cognitively complex animals -e.g. Pavlov’s dogs) - so reductionist.

variation of Asch - pps w expertise far less likely to conform.
The dispositional factor of self-efficacy reduced effect of group pressure on expert.
so exp considering dispositional and situational factors holistically =better exp for conformity.

Question 2

variables affecting conformity A03

Question 3

conforming to social roles: zimbardo A03

Answer 3

criticism methodological issues

Lack of EV
Wooden cells, not metal
chains not used
prisoners even commented at beginning of how fake it looked. (demand characteristics - not conf to social roles, exaggerated acting)
HOWEVER…
Prisoners did not know they were being arrested by real police at their home. Felt embarrassed as in front
of neighbours. Hence, like real life setting.
Also, they were depressed and
anxious, not likely demand
characteristics. The fact one tried to withdraw by asking for ‘parole’ shows
how immersed they were. Hence not low
EV.

** but ethical issues raised**

Prison stimulus took away RTW
Lack of informed consent (arrested at home)
Little protection from harm + distress - over involved in own research (superintendent) took PHD student to recognise the concerns for pps welfare for him to abandon exp after 6 days.
HOWEVER…
did acquire approval from the Office for Naval Research.
did a very thorough debrief of all pp’s. Therefore, the ethical issues are
outweighed by the benefits to society.

strength - real life application**

Real life prison changes, e.g., prisoners
called by name not no. Prison officers not allowed to cover eyes.

reduces likelihood of deindividuation and stops prison officers dehumanising prisoners. has improved treatment of prisoners + reduced riots.

HOWEVER…
Doesn’t consider dispositional factors. individual differences affected extent to which pp conformed. Beh of guards varied dramatically - sadistic beh, to helping prisoners (empathy, support).
suggests situational factors aren’t only cause of conformity and Zimbardo’s conclusion of situational variables being largely responsible = overstated.

Further more, only males used so shows a beta bias as his research may have ignored or minimised the differences between women and men conforming to social roles. so unable to conclude if females conform in similar way.

Question 4

Milgram A03

Answer 4

strength - high control and causation

standardised prompts given from experimenter (“you must continue”), responses from leaner tape recorded, objective measure of obedience using voltage.
so can be certain it’s the presence of an authority figure that’s causing high level of obedience, as all pps in same situation,
So situation=main contributing factor
HOWEVER..
exp where women and men shocked puppies to 450v. 100% women shocked to max (even when puppies showing major signs of distress), only 54% men.

also dispositional factors (gender bias)
Milgram ignored this (beta bias)

Also could be demand characteristics - some may have not believe shocks real, but could still doubt it so still RL beh.

criticism - ethical issues

Harm to pps (seizures + distress - sweating, trembling)
Lack of RTW (coercion through experimenter prompts - “you must continue”)
Deception (learner and fake shocks + rigging of allocation roles)
Debrief issues (pps all initially debriefed and told their reactions were normal but not all pps fully debriefed - some left thinking actually shocked)

These breaches could serve to damage the reputation of psychology and jeopardise future research (pls stop trusting the profession and no longer take part in exp)
Milgram should have made sure pps entered and left in same state, and fully debriefed.
HOWEVER…
without his research we wouldn’t be able to appreciate the importance of the situation we’re put in and helped to explain Nazi Germany and how genocide of Jews could occur.

Question 5

situational variables affecting obedience A03

Answer 5

_uniform_
Ev- Bickman - confederates asked public to pick up litter dressed as either a guard (82%), a milkman (64%), casual - no uniform (36%)

Ex - uniform increased obedience. Guard uniform perceived as more legitimate in park setting - creates an agentic shift quicker in due to that perceived legitimacy - making it easier for them to obey.

L - but lack of mundane realism. Milkman not usually in parks giving instructions on litter, hence realise fake field exp. demand characteristics, not uniform creating obedience.

_location_
Ev- Milgram Yale (65%) Vs rundown office (47.5%)

Ex - more prestigious - more obedience. More perceived legitimacy at Yale, more likely to genetically shift due to higher status of Yale Vs rundown office, so more legitimacy to authority of that location.

L- due to higher reputation of Yale, pps more likely to think shocks fake. Rundown office, more likely to think real, so less likely to obey.
not really measuring obedience, but demand characteristics.

_proximity_
Ev- obedience increases when in close proximity to authority figure as it’s easier to genetically shift responsibility onto experimenter.
Obedience increases when less proximity to learner and pp don’t have to see harm done - if do, harder to stay in a genetic state - so pps disobey more as more autonomous, taking personal responsibility for harm caused.

L - RLA - Milgram’s research - how Nazis could gas jews (not in close proximity to them, but in close proximity to superior officers giving the orders- so agentically shift responsibility to them)

Question 6

agentic state and legitimacy of authority A03

Question 7

dispositional explanations for obedience AO3

Question 8

Explanations of resistance to social influence: Social Support A03

Question 9

Explanations of resistance to social
influence: Locus of Control A03

Question 10

Minority influence: Moscovici A03

Question 11

Minority Influence: Social Change A03