Social Influence Flashcards
Paper 2
who investigated conformity
Asch
aim of Asch’s study
to investigate conformity through participants responses to group pressure in an unambiguous situation
method of Asch’s study
123 male American students tested in a group of 6 to 8 confederates
two large cards were shown one with a SINGLE STANDARD LINE and one with THREE COMPARISON LINES
participants were asked to select the matching line
results of Asch’s study
there were 18 trials
on the 12 critical trials the participants gave the wrong answer 1/3 of the time, agreeing with confederates
25% of the participants never gave a wrong answer meaning 75% conformed at least once
conclusions of Asch’s study
shows that people are influenced by group pressure
also shows a high level of independence as despite group pressure, the majority went against the group opinion
what are three brief evaluation points of Asch’s study
WEAKNESS - may only reflect conformity in 1950’s America (McCarthyism)
WEAKNESS - the task and situation are artificial
WEAKNESS - more reflective of individualist cultures and not collectivist cultures
explain three weaknesses of Asch’s study
1950s America was particularly conformist due to the government being dominated by McCarthyism - a movement to ostracise anyone with communist tendencies - this meant people were fearful of behaving differently from the majority
a study conducted in the UK in the 1980s investigating conformity only found one conforming response across 396 trials
this suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over time
the task and situation are rather artificial - judging the length of a line with a group does not reflect everyday situations where people conform so the results may not explain more serious real world situations
Asch’s research is more reflective of conformity in individualist cultures
studies conducted in collectivist cultures such as China produce higher conformity rates than those carried out in individualist countries such as the USA and the UK (BOND AND SMITH)
therefore we may not be able to generalise Asch’s results to collectivist cultures
what are 3 social factors affecting conformity
group size
anonymity
task difficulty
what are 2 dispositional factors affecting conformity
personality
expertise
explain group size as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
the more people there are in a group the greater the pressure to conform - Asch found that as group size increased, conformity levels increased up until 3 confederates (after which there was little difference)
the effect of group size depends on the tasks - when there is no obvious answer people conform when the group is 8+ people
explain anonymity as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
when people could write down answers (were anonymous) conformity levels were lower
Huang and Li found that expressing opinions anonymously when with friends increases conformity
explain task difficulty as a social factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
if the comparison lines are more similar to the standard, the task becomes harder and conformity increased
people with more expertise are less affected by task difficulty
explain personality as a dispositional factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
internal locus of control leads to lower conformity because you feel personally responsible
when asked to rate cartoons, BURGER AND COOPER found that participants with a high desire for control (internals) were less likely to agree with a confederate when rating the same cartoons
one weakness is that locus of control does not have an effect on conformity in familiar situations, where your past behaviour is more influential than your locus of control
explain expertise as a dispositional factor affecting conformity and give an evaluation of it
more knowledgeable people tend to be less conformist as found in the case of maths experts being less likely to conform to others’ answers to maths problems (LUCAS ET AL)
no single factor can explain conformity and this focusing on a single factor is simplistic
who investigated obedience
Milgram
aim of Milgram’s study
to see if people would obey an unreasonable order by delivering electric shocks
method of Milgram’s study
40 males between ages 20 and 50 volunteered for a study on memory
the ‘teacher’ was paired with the ‘learner’ (confederate)
the learner was strapped in a chair and wired with electrodes which could give an electric shock
the teacher was instructed to give a shock to the learner when a mistake was made
the voltage increased from 15V up to 450V
results of Milgram’s study
no participants stopped below 300V
5 participants stopped at 300V when the learner pounded on the wall
65% continued to 450V
participants also showed signs of anxiety and tensions biting nails and lips and three even had seizures
conclusions of Milgram’s study
obedience has little to do with disposition
factors in the situation made it very hard to disobey (Milgram identified 13 factors that influenced obedience including the location of the study, a new situation and not wanting to interrupt the experiment)
give three brief evaluation points of Milgram’s study
WEAKNESS - participants may not have believed the shocks were real
WEAKNESS - Milgram’s participants experienced considerable distress raising ethical concerns
STRENGTH - other studies have found similar levels of obedience
explain one strength of Milgram’s study
other studies have found similar levels of obedience
SHERIDAN AND KING found that 100% of females followed orders to give what they thought to be a fatal shock to a puppy
this suggests that Milgram’s results were not false but represented genuine obedience
explain two weakness of Milgram’s study
participants may not have believed that the shocks were real
PERRY listened to the original tape recordings made during the study and reported that participants often voices their suspicions about the shocks
this suggests that participants went along with the study because they didn’t want to spoil it
participants experienced considerable distress
Milgram could have caused psychological damage to his participants by making them think that they were causing pain to the leaner
this raises ethical issues as to whether his research should have been carried out
what does Milgram’s agency theory explain
obedience in terms of the power of others and social factors
what are the 4 key points of Milgram’s agency theory
agency - the two states :
agentic state - person follows order with no sense of personal responsibility
autonomous state - person makes their own free choices and feels responsible for their own choices
authority - the term agentic shift is used to describe the change from autonomous state to agentic state
the shift usually occurs when a persons sees someone else as a figure of authority
culture - societies tend to have a hierarchy with some people having more authority than others in this way culture socialises us to respect the social hierarchy
proximity - in Milgram’s further studies he found that if a teacher was physically closer to the learner they were less obedient
give three brief evaluation points of Milgram’s agency theory
STRENGTH - there is other research support
WEAKNESS - the theory can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience
WEAKNESS - the theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
explain one strength of Milgram’s agency theory
there is other research support
BLASS AND SCHMITT showed a film of Milgram’s study to students who blamed the experimenter rather than the teacher for harm inflicted upon the learner
therefore the students recognised the legitimate authority of the experimenter as the cause of obedience
explain two weakness of Milgram’s agency theory
the theory can’t explain why there isn’t 100% obedience
in Milgram’s study 35% of the participants didn’t continue up to the maximum 450V
this means that social factors don’t fully explain obedience
agency theory gives people an excuse for ‘blind’ obedience
Nazis who were racists and prejudiced were doing more than just following orders - MANDEL 1998 claims that it is offensive to Holocaust survivors to suggests that the Nazis simply obeyed orders
this means that agency theory is potentially dangerous as it allows people to not always think they are personally responsible
who devised the theory of authoritarian personality
Adorno