Social Influence

Question 1

Asch evaluation - strengths

Answer 1

(+) high degree of control - lab experiment - could manipulate factors to test the variables affecting conformity - increasing validity

Question 2

Asch’s evaluation - weaknesses

Answer 2

(-) lack of generalisability - sample size of American men - research shown women and ppl of collectivist cultures have higher conformity rates - smith et al - 75% was the average conformity rate in collectivist cultures compared to 25% in individualists
(-) a child of its time- Perrin and spencer replicated study in 1980s (ash did it in 1950) in UK- only 1 out of 392 conformed - diff times affect conformity
(-)ethical issues - pps deceived
(-) artificial situation - lab - trivial task - doesn’t replicate everyday life well

Question 3

NSI evaluation strengths

Answer 3

(+) research support form Asch’s study

Question 4

NSI evaluation weaknesses

Answer 4

(-) Nolan et al investigated effect of others on saving energy - pps claimed they conserved energy bc of other factors when results showed that other ppl were the biggest factor- ppl underestimate NSI- so those conclusions may be invalid
(-) individual differences - not every one cares about fitting in

Question 5

ISI strengths

Answer 5

(+) research support from Lucas et al - maths problems to students - higher conformity with the harder questions

Question 6

ISI (+NSI) weakness

Answer 6

(-) deutsch and Gerrard’s two process approach is sort of reductionist - moist of the time NSI and ISI working together rather than separate - eg presence of a dissenter can act as social support or an alternate source of info

Question 7

zimbardos weaknesses

Answer 7

(-)ethical issues - psychological harm + zimbardo played a dual role - some came to ask him to leave but he didn’t accept it bc he was acting as the superintendent at that time
(-) Fromm accused of the conclusion being overstated bc in fact only a third acted brutally the rest enforced rules fairly or even was being friendly with prisoners
(-) Banauzizi and Mohavedi insisted gourds were play sting - one guard road he based his character of a film he watched cool hand Luke

Question 8

zimbardos strengths

Answer 8

(+) high control - assessed volunteers + randomly assigned roles
(+) 90% of prisoners convos were about prison life one prisoner even believed this was a prison run by psychologists not the government - believing prison was real increases validity

Question 9

Milgram weaknesses

Answer 9

(-) ethical issues - deceived + difficult for pps to withdraw bc of the prods making them experience high anxiety + distress - also not protecting from harm
(-) lack of generalisability - lab conditions - asked ro administer electric shocks doesn’t reflect real life - more subtle instructions
(-) population bias - 40 men sample from America

Question 10

Milgram strengths

Answer 10

(+) replication of study produced v similar results. - a French Tv show had their pps administer shocks to actors - 80%went to 460v and many showed the same distressed behaviour
(+) deception was needed for experiment to work + at debrief 83.7% agreed that they were happy to participate for science

Question 11

situational variables strengths

Answer 11

(+)replicated in diff cultures - miranda et al replicated the variables variations with Spanish students and got 90% obedience rate
(+) Bickman got the same results when he did a similar study - had a milkman, security guard and a professional to ask ppl on streets to pick ups litter or pay for parking - ppl twice as likely to obey security than prof
(+)good control as he changed one variable at a time sees the effects individually - validity

Question 12

situational variables weakness

Answer 12

(-) however smith and bond says Spain is still western and has similar culler to USA so premature to say these variable are the same internationally
(-) Holland criticised original study saying pps guessed aim and with these variations its more likely they guessed - casts doubts over validity

Question 13

agentic state strengths

Answer 13

(+) Blass and Schmitt showed film of Milgram’s study to a class - asked who to blame - said experimenter - how easy blame is given to authority figure validates this theory

Question 14

agentic state weaknesses

Answer 14

(-)doesn’t explain findings of Hofling et al’s study with the nurses - didn’t show the moral strain expected
(-) not accepted in the judicial system as the argument of just following orders has not won - those used those lines been punished like Albert Eichmann
(-) soldiers were given orders to shoot civilian leaders in a polish town but aosnthe choice of doing smtg else yet they still shot them showing that they didn’t enter agentic state as no moral strain and CHOSE to do it - Mandel

Question 15

legitimacy of authority strengths

Answer 15

(+) milgrams variations where he changed location to a rundown building (47.8) and when it was a member of public (20%)

(+) tarnow studied data from plane accidents and found that there was excessive dependence on the captain bc “they know what they’re doing”
even if it’s risky orders

(+) blass and schmitt showed the film- students said they saw the legitimate of the authority

Question 16

authoritarian personality strengths

Answer 16

(+) Milgram and Elms conducted interviews with pps from Milgram’s study and found that those highly obedient also scored highly on the F-scale

Question 17

authoritarian personality weaknesses

Answer 17

(-) This correlation found in Elm’s interviews is just a correlation, not cause and effect
(-) also the link between harsh parenting and authoritarian personality is just a correlation - limits validity
(-) cannot explain behaviour of whole countries eg tWW2 all of Germany were harsh and racist towards jews - unlikely they all had authoritarian personality
(-)ppl could’ve succumbed to acquiescence bias - flawed methodology - all worded in “one direction “ so if someone ticked all the same boxes they would’ve got a particular score - limits validity

Question 18

social support strengths

Answer 18

(+)ash’s variation - presence of a dissenter who gave the right answer throughout - conformity was 5%- not long lasting tho
(+) Milgram’s variation of pairing pp with two confederates who refused to go up to 450- obedience dropped to 10%
(+)Asch’s variation also included when the dissenter was incorrect - 9% conformity

Question 19

Locus of control strengths

Answer 19

(-) Rotter said that the role of LOC is only prevalent in novel situations - meaning if in previous experiences web conformed or obeyed were likely to do it again even If we have high internal LOC
(-) Twenge analysed American LOC studies across a 40 year period and found we have become more resistant but more internal

Question 20

minority influence strengths

Answer 20

(+)Martin et al provides evidence for deeper processing - a stiff where two groups hear an opinion one from a minority and other from a majority, then presented with conflicting view, those who had heard the minority less willing to change opinion
(+)in a variation of moscovici’s study where pps wrote down answers - more agreed with minority in that condition

Question 21

minority influence weaknesses

Answer 21

(-)moscovici’s study lacked external validity bc if the artificial and trivial task - in reality minorities are arguing for smug more complex
(-) in studies clear divide between minority and majority and non other factors, in reality wealth and power come into play

Question 22

Social change strengths

Answer 22

(+) Nolan et al study in California with the energy conserving in neighbourhoods - one had signs saying others are doing it and one had just signs saying do it - significant reduction in energy usage in the first neighbourhood

Question 23

social change weaknesses

Answer 23

(-) social change takes a long time and the impact of minority can be indirect and delayed as when chase comes about its more to do with matters at hand rather than the central issue
(-) research into social change comes from studies that can be criticised for methodology eg asch, moscovici and Milgram
(-) Mackie argues that majority influence can also cause a deeper processing - if you in minority you might be like why does the majority think differently
(-) stereotypes of minority eg environmentalists known as tree huggers can put ppl off