Social Influence

Question 1

Lucas et al (2006)

Answer 1

Asked students to solve maths problems, and conformity was greater when the questions were harder. Supports ISI

Question 2

Deutsch & Gerard (1955)

Answer 2

Developed the two process theory of conformity. ISI and NSI.

Question 3

McGhee and Teevan (1967)

Answer 3

Students with a high need for affiliation were more likely to conform. Shows NSI doesnt account for individual differences.

Question 4

Asch (1951, 1955)

Answer 4

123 American undergrauates. Showed participants 3 lines asking which one matched a seperate single line. 6-8 confederates, one participant. Asked sequentially with participant last/2nd to last. Confederates gave the wrong answer in 12 of 18 trials 75% conformed at least once. Wrong answer was given 36.8% of the time, compared to 1% in controls.

Question 5

Variations on Asch?

Answer 5

Number of confederates ( 1,2,3+ confederates 3%, 13% and 36%) Difficulty, and Unanimity.

Question 6

Perrin and Spencer (1980)

Answer 6

Repeated Asch Study and found only one student conformed in 386 trials. Asch is a result of a conformist America in the 50s.

Question 7

Zimbardo (1971)

Answer 7

Mock prison with 12 guards and 12 prisoners,. ZImbardo was the prison superindendent. Guards had uniforms and prisoners were arressted and strip searched (ecological validity). Guards quickly became aggressive, prisoners retaliated and/or became depressed. Experiment shut down after 6 days instead of 14 due to ethical concerns (deindivuation). People conformed to their social roles when placed in that environment.

Question 8

Fromm (1973)

Answer 8

Power dynamics in Zimbardo were exaggerated as a cause for conformity, only one was aggressive and simply playing a known role (demand characteristics). Ignored personality factors. Provide an alternative explaination for Zimbardio results.

Question 9

Milgram (1963)

Answer 9

40 male pps asked to give electric shocks ranging from 15V to 450V when another ‘participant’ got the answer wrong. Every particpant went to 300V and 65% went to 450V. Shows influence authority has on actions, even when the actions are morally wrong.

Question 10

Orne and Holland (1968)

Answer 10

Milgrams results were due to not believing the set up and guessing that the shocks weren’t real, not due to obedience. Criticises the significance of obedience on behaviour.

Question 11

Variations of Milgram?

Answer 11

Location - only 47.5% continued to 450V when done in an office building rather than Yale. Supports legitimacy of authority
Uniform - when experimenter was in normal clothes and perceived to be another participant, only 20% went to 450V. Supports legitimacy of authority
Proximity - When closer to learner only 40% of participants went to 450V, and when teacher had to force the learner to put their hand on the shock plate only 30%. Supports agentic shift (less obedience when more responsibility)

Question 12

Smith and Bond (1998)

Answer 12

All replications have been done in western countries, and therfore cannot be applied globally.

Question 13

Blass and Schmitt (2001)

Answer 13

Showed students a video of Milgram’s experiment and asked them who was responsible. They all said the experimenter was responsible. Supports the agentic shift.

Question 14

Adorno et al (1950)

Answer 14

The F-scale is used to determine people with an authoritarian personality, marking the valuing of obedience, authority etc. Questions marked in one direction with those with an authoritarian personality marking strong. Possible explaination of obedience.

Question 15

Milgram (1966)

Answer 15

Found a correlation between high F-scale and obedience. Supports authoritarian personality.

Question 16

Asch as an explaination for resistance to social influence?

Answer 16

When one confederate answered differently to the rest conformity dropped significantly, supporting social support as an explaination for resisting conformity.

Question 17

Milgram (1961)

Answer 17

Social support is an important factor in social change and the presence of disobedient models is important in social change.

Question 18

Rotter (1966)

Answer 18

High internal LOC beleive they control their fate, take more responsibility and resist social influence more often. Alternate explaination for resistance to social influence.

Question 19

Holland (1967)

Answer 19

Used Milgram’s baseline study and found that 37% of internals didnt go to the highest, and 23% of externals didn’t go to the highest. Supports LOC.

Question 20

Twenge et al. (2004)

Answer 20

Meta-analysis of LOC studies found people get more resistance to obedience but more external with age. Contrasts LOC as an explanation for resistance to social influence

Question 21

Moscovici et al. (1969)

Answer 21

Blue slides study. 6 people were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue. Asked to say whether it was blue or green. Two confederates said it was green in 2/3 of trials. Particpants gave the same wrong asnwer in 8.42% of trials, compared to 1.25% of those with an inconsistent minority.
Supports consistency as a significant factor in successful minority influence.

Question 22

Nemeth (1986)

Answer 22

Groups of 4 asked to agree on compensation in a ski accident. In one condition a steadfast number, in another the confederate compromised with a slightly high figure. The flexible condition was more successful. Supports flexibility as a factor in minority influence.

Question 23

Nolan et al. (2008)

Answer 23

Conditions where particiapnts were told that their neighbours were working on reducing energy consumption so they should vs just being told to reduce energy consumption had a more significant impact. NSI is important for social change in real life situations.

Question 24

Sheridan and King (1972)

Answer 24

Real shocks given to a puppy, 54% of male and 100% of female participants delievered the fatal shock.

Question 25

Holfling et al (1966)

Answer 25

Called a nurse to order them to administer medication, it was a deadly dose, and 21 of 22 obeyed (they were stopped before administering it).