Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Conformity (AO3) Research into zimbardos prison experiment 🔴

Answer 1

One weakness of zimbardos study was a criticism from Fromm, accusing zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation in influencing behaviour and minimising the dispositional factors — for example, only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally whereas the other 2/3rds fairly followed rules and some offered help and sympathy to prisoners — therefore, zimbardo overstated the influence of situational factors on conformity

Answer 2

Aim -> to investigate how far participants would go to obey an authority figure in acts that went against their personal conscience Procedure > set in yale university, 40 American males volunteered to take part in a study they believed was on memory — each participant was introduced to mr Wallace (a confederate) — p and c drew names out of a hat to see who’d be teacher (T) or learner (L) — the draw was fixed so the P was always T — there was also an experimenter (E) who was an authority figure in a white lab coat (confederate)

Answer 3

Learner: mr Wallace (confederate) - type recordings of mr Wallace in pain Experimenter: (confederate) - gave 4 prods if teacher was reluctant Teacher: administers shocks starting at 15v increasing by the same amount to 450v For every wrong answer a shock is delivered (shocks weren’t real but teacher thought they were)

Answer 4

Prods: 1– please comtinue 2– the experiment requires that you continue 3– it is essential that you continue 4– you have no other choice, you must go on — 100% of participants reached 300v — 12.5% stopped at 315v — 65% reached the full 450v — quantitative findings showed the participants gave extreme signs of tension such as — uncontrollable laughing —sweating — nail biting — stuttering — digging nails into hands — 3 people had seizures

Answer 5

One strength is research support from Beauvois at al — milgrams findings were replicated in a French documentary about a game show called the game of death Contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (confederates) in front of an audience — their behaviour was almost identical to milgrams participants, 80% went to 450v — this supports milgrams original findings about obedience to authority and demonstrates the findings were not due to specific circumstances

Answer 6

one weakness of milgrams study is low internal validity. -- milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shcoks were genuine -- however Orne and Holland claimed the participants did not believe it was, due to the calm and distant nature of the experimenter --> leading to doubts -- to support this Perry listened to tapes of milgrams participants and discovered many expressed doubts they weren't real -- therefore, suggesting demand characteristics may have influenced obedience rather than the authority figure, lowering internal validity -- however, sheridan and king conducted a milgram style study where participants gave real shocks to puppies in response to orders from an experimenter -- despite the real distress of the animals, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock -- therefore, suggesting the effects in milgrams study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real

Answer 7

one strength of milgrams study is it can be generalised to other real life situations, despite being conducted in a lab -- for example, Holfing et al arranged for an unknown doctor to phone 22 nurses and ask each one individually to administer an overdose of a drug -- 95% obeyed without question -- therefore supporting that milgrams findings can be generalized to real life situation

Answer 8

one weakness is milgram broke several ethical guidelines -- for example, participants were deceived as they believed they were taking part in a study on how punishment affects learing rather than obedience, as well as the role allocation being predetermined -- milgram also did not protect participants from psychological harm as many showed signs of distress such as seizures and guilt -- therefore, milgrams study is less valid as an explanation for obedience since it was carried out unethically

Answer 9

-- in milgrams study the teacher could hear the learner but not see him -- in the proximity variabtion, T and L were in the same room and obedience fell from the oringinal 65% to 40% -- in the touch proximity variation the T forced the L's hand ono the electroshock plate, obedience dropped further to 30% -- in the remote instruction proximity the experimenter gave instructions via telephone, obedience reduced to 20.5% -- he concluded that closer proximity reduces obedience as the T cant psychologically distance from L

Answer 10

-- in milgrams study participants went to yale university to take part in the study -- in the location variation, study was conducted n a run down office, obedience fell from 65% to 47.5% -- this shows location explains obedience because the prestigious university gave milgrams study legitimacy and authority -- this meant participants were more obedient as they perceived the E shared these qualities. -- however, obedience was still in high in the office because of the scientific nature of the procedure

Answer 11

-- in milgrams study, the experimenter wore grey lab coat -- in the uniform variation, the experimenter was called away at the start of the procedure and replaced by a member of the public (confed), dressed in ordinary clothes -- obedience fell to 20% -- this shows uniform explains obedience because uniforms are widely recognized as symbols of authority -- someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience

Answer 12

one strength is research suport from bickman's study demonstrating the influence of situational variables on obedience -- in this field experiment, Bickman had 3 confederates dressed I different outfits - a jacket and tie - milkmans outift - security uniform -- each one stood in the street and asked the public to perform a task (e.g. pick up litter) -- they found people were twice as likely to obey the person in the security uniform than the suit and tie -- this supports the variation of uniform as there is a visual representation of authority causing people to obey

Answer 13

one strength is milgrams findings are generalisable to other cultures -- for example, Meeus and Raaijmakers used a similar procedure to study obedience in dutch patients -- participants were ordered to say stressful things to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job, 90% of participants obeyed -- however, smith and bond suggested Milgrams research is not very cross cultural as most replications were conducted in western cultures that have similar notions about authority -- therefore, findings on situational variables do not apply to all cultures

Answer 14

one limitation is altering the situational variables could have made the participants aware the procedure was faked as pointed out by Orne and Holland -- for example, when the experimenter was replaced by a member if the public, this was easy to work out the truth -- therefore, weakening the cause and effect relationship between the situational variables and obedience levels due to the participants responding to demand characteristics

Answer 15

the agentic state is where we feel no personal responsibility for our behavior because we are acting as an agent to an authority figure -- the opposite of the agentic state is the autonomous state, where individuals ac according to their own principles and take full responsibility for their actions -- the agentic shift occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure -- binding factos are aspects of a situation that reduced the moral strain and keep the individual in the agentic state (e.g. minimizing the consequences, shifting blame to the victim) -- support from milgrams research as 65% continued as they believed E was responsible

Answer 16

legitimacy of authority means we are more likely to obey people who we perceive have authority this is justified by their position in a social hierarchy -- societies are organized into social hierarchy's meaning people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us such as teachers or police -- while legitimacy of authority can maintain social order it can also lead to destructive authority where people obey harmful orders as they perceive them as justified -- for example in milgrams study participants obeyed the experimenter because of his association with the prestigious Yale university reinforced his credibility

Answer 17

one strength is research support from milgram on the role of the agentic state -- most of milgrams participants resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter 'who was responsible if L was harmed' -- when E took responsibility the participants often continued -- this supports the explanation of the agentic state as once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behavior, they acted more easily as the experimenters agent

Answer 18

one limitation is that the agentic shift doesn't explain all findings from obedience such as Rank and Jacobson's study -- they found 16/18 hostpital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient -- the doctor was an obvious authority figure yet almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram's participant -- therefore, sugesting the egentic shift cna only account for some explanations of obedience

Answer 19

one strength is legitimacy of authority can explain cultural differences -- for example, Kilham and Mann found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way to 450volts in a milgram style study -- however Mantell found that this figure was 85% for German participants -- this shows, in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and reflects how different societies are structured

Answer 20

one limitation is that legitimacy cannot explain all instances of disobedience -- for example in Rank and Jacobsons study, 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient -- despite working is a rigidly hierchacal structure, most nurses disobeyed -- this suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others -- therefore, dispositional factors may be more influential on obedience than legitimacy of authority

Answer 21

the authoritarian personality suggests certain personality traits make individuals likely to obey authority figures they're submissive to 'superiors' and dismissive to 'inferiors' -- forms at childhood as a result of harsh parenting -- creates resentment which is displayed onto others who they perceive as weaker -- measured using the F-scale developed by Adorno et Al -- they studied more than 2000 middle class white americans -- findings showed people with authoritarian leanings (those who scored higher on the F-scale) identified with 'strong' people and were very conscious of they're status -- concluded there was a positive correlation between authoritarianism and obedience to authority

Answer 22

one strength is evidence from milgram and Elms supporting the authoritarian personality -- they interviewed 20 people from Milgrams baseline study who had been fully obedient -- they all completed the F-scale as part of the interview findings showed that these 20 participants scored significantly higher on the everall F-scale compared to a group of 20 of the disobedient participants -- this supports Adorno et Al' views that obedient people may show similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality

Answer 23

one limitation is milgram and Elms' findings doesn't fully explain the link between obedience and the authoritarian personality -- when researchers analysed the F-scale answers, they found that the obedient participants had recorded a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians -- for example, milgrams obedient participants generally did not glorify their fathers or feel hostile towards their mothers -- this suggests the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complect and is not useful predictor of obedience

Answer 24

one limitation is that the authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population -- for example, in pre-war germany, millions of people displayed anti semitic behaviour -- this was despite the fact that they must have differed in their personalities in many ways -- it is extremely unlikely that they could all posses an authoritarian personality -- therefore, suggesting that Adorno's theory is limited as it can't explain all accounts of obedience

Answer 25

another limitation is that the F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology (fascism) -- christie and Jahoda argued that the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality and does not account for the reality of left wing authoritarianism such as russian bolshevism as the importance of complete obedience to political authority -- therefore suggesting Adorno's theory is not comprehensive as it doesn't account for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum

Answer 26

People may resist pressures to conform or obey is they have support from a dissenter (someone who disagrees with the majority or refuses to obey) — this frees the individual from the pressure to conform or obey allowing them to act independently — resistance to conformity shown in Aschs study, variation of unanimity, the confederate who is not conforming may still give a wrong answer, simply the fact that there is a dissenter enables the naive participant to be free — resisting obedience shown in one of milgrams variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate

Answer 27

Proposed by Rotter, the locus of control is a concept of how much a person believes they control what happens in their lives on a scale from high internal to high external Internal LOC — believe they have a lot of control over their lives (e.g I failed the exam because I didn’t work hard enough) Internals are more likely to resist social influence They base decisions on own beliefs and have higher confidence and independence leading to greater resistance External LOC — believe many things that happen are outside of their control (e.g I failed my exams because the questions were unfair) They are less likely to resist social influence as they are less likely to take personal responsibility and have more need for social approval

Answer 28

One strength is research support from Allen and Levine — they produced an Asch type task, where the dissenter was someone with apparently good eyesight, 64% of participants resisted conformity — even when the dissenter wore thick glasses (poor eyesight), resistance was still 36% of participants — when there was no dissenter resistance was only 3% of participants — shows having social support increases resistance to social influence

Answer 29

One strength is research support from Holland — Holland repeated milgrams baseline study and measured whether participants were internals or externals — findings showed that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level — 23% of externals did not continue — conclusions, internals showed greater resistance to authority This shows that resistance is partly related to LOC which increases LOC as an explanation of disobedience

Answer 30

One limitation is evidence that challenges the link between LOC and resistance — teenage at Al analysed data from American LOC studies conducted over a 40 year period (1960-2002) — the data showed, over this time people became more resistant to obedience BUT also more external (LOC) — therefore of resistance is linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to become more internal — suggests that LOC is not a valid explanation of why people resist social influence

Answer 31

One strength of resistance to social influence is research support from Gamson et al on social support — participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign — findings showed they found higher levels of resistance compared to migrants study, 88% rebelled against their orders — they concluded, peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure

Answer 32

Minority influence is a form of social influence in which a minority persuades others to adopts their beliefs or behaviours — leads to internalisation — moscovici studied this process in his blue/ green slide study — a group of 6 people were asked to view a set of 36 blue slides the state whether they were blue to green — in each group (consisting or inconsistent) there were 2 confederates who consistently said slides were green — he found participants gave the same wrong answer in 8.42% of the trials — when there were no confess This was only 0.25% — showing a minority can influence a majority