Social Influence Flashcards
AO3 — Milgram, for Social Support as an explanation of Resistance To Social Influence:
When a disobedient peer was introduced to a Milgram’s Shock Experiment variation, obedience dropped to 10%.
AO3 — Lucas et al.:
Research support for Asch’s task difficulty variation. Conformity rates increased with harder maths tasks.
AO3 — Asch’s variation, for NSI:
A ‘late’ participant wrote down answers while confederates spoke their (wrong) answers. Conformity dropped to 12.5% without normative group pressure (confrere rates can’t react to the participants answer).
AO3 — Fromm, for Zimbardo’s SPE:
Said Zimbardo exaggerated conclusations. 1/3 harsh, 1/3 neutral, 1/3 actively try to help.
AO3 — Banuazizi & Movahedi, for Zimbardo’s SPE:
Said participants play-acted to media stereotypes. E.g. one participant said they thought of Cool Hand Luke.
AO3 — McDermont, for Banuazizi & Movahedi:
90% of the ‘prisoners’ thought the mock prison was real. Therefore not play-acting. (BUT, guards still could have been.)
AO3 — Haslam & Reicher, for Zimbardo’s SPE:
Suggest Social Identity Theory as an alternate explanation to Confomity to Social Roles, that active identification causes them to take on their roles, that it’s not automatic.
AO3 — Haslam et al., for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Found: participants didn’t obey ‘Prod 4’. Suggested they identified with the study’s scientific aims (Social Identity Theory), they weren’t blindly obeying authority.
AO3 — Beauvois, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Research support, reliability. On a TV documentary/game show, 80% of participants continued to the max. voltage, and exhibited similar behaviour to Milgram’s participants.
AO3 — Orne & Holland, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Said participants realised the shocks were fake, so were play-acting (responding to demand characteristics).
AO3 — Perry, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Tapes of participants showed 50% thought the shocks were fake.
AO3 — Sheridan & King, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Research support, counter to Orne & Holland, and Perry. Participants gave real shocks to a puppy.
AO3 — Baumbind, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Said since participants deceived, couldn’t give informed consent.
AO3 — Bickman, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Research support. A field experiment showing the power of the uniform.
AO1 — Bickman, 1974:
Three IV variations: guard uniform, milkman uniform, no uniform. He found that obedience was greater when he wore a higher-authority uniform, than lower-authority, then none.
AO3 — Meeus & Raaijmakers, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment:
Research support in a cross-cultural Milgram-style study, showing generalisability to other cultures.
AO1 — Meeus & Raaijmakers:
Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee. Decreased obedience with decreased proximity to authority figure.
AO3 — Smith & Bond, for Meeus & Raaijmakers:
Pointed out that most supporting studies carried out in countries similar to the US, so Milgram’s Shock Experiment may still not be generalisable to (e.g.) collectivist cultures.
AO3 — Bashir et al., evaluating Social Change:
Said people resist social change because minority are seen negatively (e.g. ‘tree-huggers’).
AO3 — Mackie, evaluating Deeper Processing, Stage 3 of Social Change:
Majority views are processed more deeply than minority views. This challenges a central feature of minority influence.
AO3 — Martin et al., for the Process of Social Change:
Participants exposed to the minority view resisted the majority view. BUT, IRL majority holds more power.
AO3 — McGhee & Teevan, for NSI:
nAffiliates (people with a greater need for social relationships) want to be liked (NSI) so conform more. So, NSI influences conformity.
AO3 — Orne & Holland, for Milgram’s Variations:
Some procedures were especially contrived so the obedience wasn’t genuine. Therefore, decreased internal validity.
AO3 — Mandel, for Milgram’s Shock Experiment(s):
Danger of the situational perspective (situational explanation for obedience). Said it gives an obedience alibi for destructive behaviours.
AO3 — Rank & Jacobson, for the Agentic State explanation of obedience:
Rank & Jacobson’s nurses (and some of Milgram’s participants) disobeyed. It cannot explain this disobedience.
AO3 — Mandel, for Agentic State as an explanation of Obedience:
Police Battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively. It can’t explain this.
AO3 — 2 studies, for Legitimacy of Authority:
Kilham & Mann’s study in Australia — only 16% obeyed.
Mantell’s study in Germany — 85% obeyed.
The different societal structures create differences in obedience. These cultural differences are explained by Legitimacy of Authority.
AO3 — Rank & Jacobson, for Legitimacy of Authority:
It can’t explain all disobedience. The nurses were in a hierarchical structure, but didn’t obey legitimate authority.
AO3 — Christie & Jahoda, for Authoritarian Personality as an Explanation of Obedience:
Said the F-Scale was politically biased. It is designed to measure fascism, far-right extremism, but there are leftist authoritarians.
AO3 — Greenstein, for Authoritarian Personality:
The F-Scale as a tool measuring AP and fascism is flawed due to response bias, and so not useful. Yet it is the basis of AP.
AO3 — Albrecht et al., for Social Support explanation of Resistance to Social Influence:
IRL support. A ‘buddy’ helps people resist peer pressure to smoke.
AO3 — Gamson et al., for Social Support as an explanation for Resistance to Social Influence:
When participants were in a group, there was decreased obedience to an oil company’s order.
AO1 — Allen & Lavine’s variation, of Asch’s Line Judgement Task:
2 conditions. 1 = dissenter with normal eyesight (no glasses) => 64% resisted. 2 = dissenter with poor eyesight (bottle lense glasses) => 36% resisted.
