SOCIAL INFLUENCE Flashcards
strengths of explanations for conformity
x2
research suport for ISI:
Lucas et al. found greater conformity on harder maths questions and most true for students who said they were poor at maths
research support for NSI:
Asch asked participants why they conformed to incorrect answers and said they were afraid of disapproval. Repeated study with written nswers and conformity reduced to 12.5%
limitations for explanations for conformity
x3
individual differences in ISI:
Asch found students less conformist to other participants (28% compared to 37%) and Perrin & Spencer found very little conformity among engineering students
individual differences in NSI:
McGhee & Teevan found students high in need of affiliation more likely to conform than those who weren’t
‘two-process’ aprroach of ISI and NSI oversimplified:
conformity reduced when dissenter introduced but unable to isolate whether due to ISI (alternative source f info) or NSI (social support) so not independent of each other
limitations of Asch’s research
x4
inconsistent across time and situations:
Perrin and Specer repeated with engineering students and only conformed in 1 of 396 trials as more confident in measuring lines so less conformist. 1950s conformist time in US
not generalisable:
participants knew they were in a study and task trivial so went along with others (demand characteristics) also Friske commented that the ‘groups weren’t very groupy’
findings limited to US men:
Neto suggests women may be more conformist due to more concern over social relationships. Smith and Bond suggested in collectivist cultures in which they are more concerned about group needs e.g China will be more conformist
ethical issues:
costs may outweigh benefits as they were decieved into thinking the confederates were participants like themselves and not recruited to lie. Benefits limited as only explains US men
strength of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment
x1
control over certain variables so higher internal validity:
control over selection of participants and able to rigorously test to ensure their emotional stability. randomly assigned to roles so chnage in behaviour due to situation not personalities. saw it as real e.g 90% of convo about prison life
limitations of Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment
x3
lack of realism:
Banuazizi & Mohavedi argued participants were merely play acting and their perfomrances reflected stereotypes of roles. e.g on guard claimed he based his role on character from film Cool Hand Luke
exaggerating power of situation and downplaying dispositional traits:
only 1/3 of guards acted brutaly towards prisoners, 1/3 applied rules fairly and 1/3 supported prisoners. over-stating conformity due to social roles as guards exeercised right and wrong choices
not supported by replication:
Reicher &Haslam’s boradcasted replication saw the prisoners form a cohesive group and take over the prison. didn’t confrom to soical roles and actively rebelled against them suggesting brutality in SPE explained by shared social identity of cohesive group of guards
strengths of Milgram’s research into obedience
x3
good external validity so generalisable:
lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflect real life authority relationships. also, Hofling et al. found 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands by a doctor
replicated on TV:
in French TV show 80% gave max voltage of 450 to an ‘unconscious man’ which shows Milgram’s findings weren’t a one off
good internal validity:
Orne &Holland suggest participants guessed elctric shocks were fake so not testing obedience. But Sheridan & King’s participants gave real shocks to a puppy and 100% of women and 54% of men gave ‘fatal’ shock. also, 70% of Milgram’s ppts belived the shocks were genuine
limitation of Milgram’s research into obedience
x1
ethical issues:
Baumrid argued severe ethical issues involved in study as deceived numerous ways such as random allocations and real shocks which damage reputation of psychologist and their research. after being deceived and subject to harm, ppts less likely to volunteer for future research
both perry (listened to recording of ppts expressing doubts over reality of shocks) and Orne & Holland suggest most ppts knew shocks were fake so obedience not being tested but play acting
strengths of Milgram’s situational variables
x2
high control over variables:
altered one variable at a time and had 3 separate categories of variables and other variables kept constant showing cause and effect relationships. over 1000 ppts involved
research support for influence of situational variables:
Bickman showed people are more likely to obey orders e.g putting a coin in the parking meter from someone dressed as a security guard than someone dressed in shirt and tie showing uniform conveys authority
weaknesses of Milgram’s situational variables
x2
demand characterisics:
Orne and Holland’s criticism of participants seeing the situation as fake and acting along with the situation is even more likely, particularly when the experimenter was replaced by ‘a member of the public’ (even Milgram recognised it was so contrived ppts may have worked it out)
provides an ‘obedience alibi’ for nazi war criminals - Mandel as suggests situation and not person responsible
strengths of social-psychological factors for obedience
x3
legitimacy of authority provides a useful account of cultural differences in obedience:
e.g replications of Milgrams study found 16% obedience rate in Australia (Kilham & Mann) and 85% in Germany (Mantell). authroity more likely to be accept in some cultures than others due to how children are raised to perceive authoiryt figures so increases validity of explanation as supportive cross-cultural research
explains real-life destructive obedience:
Kelman & Hamlton suggest the My Lai massacre can be explained by power hierachry in US army as it’s authority is recognised by the US government and the law so soldiers assumed orders (to kill, rape etc) to be legal
support for legitimacy of authority explanation:
Blass and Schmidt showed students a film of Milgram’s study and asked who was responsible for harm to the victim. They placed blame on experimenter due to tem having legitimate and expert authority so recognised legitimate authority as a cause for obedience
limitation of social-psychological factors of obedience
x1
can’t account for some behaviours of the Nazis:
Mandel looked at Batallion 101 and they’re actions of shooting civilians in a small Polish town. They were told they could be assigned to other duties, so in autonomous state as free to choose and still carried out orders. Challenges explanation as not powerless to disobey
limitations of dispositional explanations of obedience
x4
limited explanation:
millions of Germans displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaiour but couldn’t possibly all have the same personalities. Social identity theory provides a much better explanation as suggests Germans identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state and adopted its virtues
based on flawed methodology:
Greenstein said the F-scale is full as errors such as all questions in one direction so measuring tendency to agree to everything and also researchers knew ppts scores so knew who had an AP and hypothesis so biased results likely. lacks validity
politically biased:
Christie and Jahoda suggest it aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology but both right and left-ing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority. not comprehensive explanation as doesn’t explain obedeince to left-wing authoritarianism
research uses correlations:
Adorno measured many variables and found significant correlations btewen them e.g AP and prejudice towards minority groups but can’t be assumed one causes the other. Adorno can’t claim that harsh parenting style causes development of AP etc
strengths of resistance to social influence
x5
supporting evidence for social support:
Allen & Levine found independence increased in Asch type study even if the dissenter wore thick glasses and claimed he had poor vision. resistance not motivated by following what someone says but enables freedom of pressure from group
supporting evidence for link between locus of control and resistance:
Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether ppts were internal and external. 37% of internals didn’t continue to 450V whereas only 23% of externals didn’t
Rank & Jacobson repeated Hofling’s study but nurses were asked to administer real drug by a doctor who was familiar to nurses. nurses were allowed to discuss with each other and only 2/18 nurses obeyed doctors orders. resistance to obedience with social support
Avtgis found in meta-analysis of conformity studies +0.37 correlation between high external locus of control and conformity
strengths of minority influence
x2
supporting evidence for consistency:
Moscovici found minority opinion had greatest effect when conistsnet and Wood et al. did meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies and found consistent minorities were most influential
support for involvement of internalisation:
Moscovici varied his study by making ppts write down answer of paper so their responses were private. agreement with minority greater so internalisation had taken place even though they had been reluctant to admit ‘conversion’ publically (reflects real-life difference in public and private beliefs on minority matters)
limitations of minority influence
x2
studies use artificial tasks:
slide colour hardly how minorities try to change majoritiy opinion in real-life and e.g jury decision making outcomes are vastly more important. lack external validity and limited in explaining minority influence in real-life
applications limited:
in real-life not a clear disntiction between minority and majority. difference more than just number e.g majorty have more power and status. research rarely reflects dynamics of these groups so doesn’t apply to real-life minority influence sitautions which exert a more powerful influence
