social influence Flashcards
Asch baseline study evaluation positive
Research support - Lucas, 2006.
‘easy’/’hard’ maths questions
P’s given answers from 3 others
conform when harder
Asch baseline study evaluation limitations
artificial situation/task - demand Characteristicsm no reason not conform
fiske 2014- no generalisation
limited application- Us men, individualist culture
situational variables - negative to Lucas (confidence in maths)
Zimbardo’s study evaluation positive
control - mosh stable, random assign, rules out personality differences as explanation
McDermott , 2019 - behave as real (416)
90% convos - prison life
high internal validity
Zumbardo study evolution limitations
lack of realism
Banuazizi and Movahedi, 1975 - play acting ‘cool hand Luke’
thought Riots correct
Exaggerates power -
1/3 brutal. 1/3 fair rules. 1/3 help Ps.
most resist situational pressure of brutality
Milgram study evaluation positives
research support
French TV show, 80% max to unconscious, not ‘special’ circumstances
Puppy - Sheridan and king 1972. 100% women kill, 54% men kill.
Milgram study evaluation limitation
low internal validity
orne and holland, 1968
‘play acting’
only 75% believe genuine
respond demand characteristics
Milgram study alt interpretation
Haslam 2014 - verbal prods.
associate exp more valid - obey
social identity theory
situational variables evaluation positive
research support
Bickerman, 1974, field experiment
3 confeds - tie&jacket, milkman, security guard
ask public on street tasks
x2 likely obey security guard than tie&jacket
cross culture replication
dutch study - Meeus&raaijmakers 1986
sya stressful things to confederate desperate for job - 90% obey.
proximity replicated - person giving orders not present. less obedience.
situational variables evaluation limitations
to cross cultural
smith&bond, 1998 - 2 replications (1968-1985) in Jordan and India, others similar cultures to US.
low internal validity
Orne&Holland 1968 - criticised baseline, aware fake.
aware fake - manipulation of variables.
situational explanations evaluation positives
research support - milligram’s studies support agentic state (participants resisted, asked questions, continue when not responsible)
explains cultural differences
Kilham and Mann 1974 - 16% Aussie women to 450V in M-style study.
Mantell, 1971 - German 85%
diff structured societies
situational explanations evaluation limitation(obedience)
limited explanation of obedience
Rank and Jacobson, 1977
16/18 hospital nurses disobey doctors administrating excessive drug dose. - Remain autonomous
Can’t explain all disobedience in hierarchy where legitimacy of authority clear and accepted.
Authoritarian personality and Adorno evaluation positives
research support
Elms and Milgram 1966 - interview small sample participants OG obedience study (fully obedient)
scored higher on F scale than disobedient comparison group.
Authoritarian personality and Adorno evaluation limitations
researchers analyses individuals F scale, sub-scales -> have unusual characteristics. so, authoritarianism is unlikely predictor of obedience.
Limited explanation - not explain majority country population. Nazi war Germany, scapegoats more likely.
F scale is Politically bias interpretation of AP - Christie and Jahoda, 1954. Extremes.
social support - resisting conformity evaluation positives
real world research support - Albrecht et al 2006. Evaluated teen fresh start USA, 8W programme. 14-19 resist smoke. social support buddy - less likely.
Research support for dissenting peers
Gamson et al 1982 - groups give evidence help oil company, 88% group rebelled.
social support - LOC evaluation positives
research support
Holland 1967 - repeated Milgram baseline. Measured internal/external participants.
37% of internals - not continued highest shock
23% of externals - not continue
