social influence A01 Flashcards
AO1 Outline Asch’s line study and it’s aims.
-123 American male participants were tested individually
-group of six to eight confederates
-Wanted to measure the extent that people conformed to the opinion of others (even if they were wrong)
A01 Variables investigated by Asch
1) Group size: Varied number of confederates in each group between 1 and 15
Relationship between group size and level of conformity was curvilinear (2 confederates=13.6% conformity, 3 confederates=31.8% conformity)
2)Unanimity: Introduced dissenting confederate who sometimes gave the right answer/sometimes wrong
Conformity reduced to less than a quarter of the level it was before when dissenter gave right/wrong answer (allowed ppt to be more independent)
3)Task Difficulty: Line task made harder by making lines more similiar
Conformity increased as the situation is more ambiguous (more likely to look for guidance=informational social influence)
A03 Evaluate Asch’s Line Study
-Limitation: situation and task were artificial
Ppts knew they were in a research study= demand characteristics
Fiske argued ‘Groups were not very groupy’
Findings do not generalise to everyday life
-Limitation: findings have little application
Only American men were tested
USA is an individualist culture and studies in collectivist cultures (China) have found higher conformity rates
Tells us little about conformity in women and other cultures
-Strength: Supporting evidence
Lucas et al asked ppts to solve ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ maths problems, ppts were given answers that claimed to be from 3 other students
Ppts conformed more often when problems were harder
Shows Asch was correct in Task Difficulty variable (COUNTERPOINT: conformity is more complex, related to confidence. high confidence=less conformity, shows individual level factors interact with situational ones)
A01 Outline 3 types of conformity
1) Internalisation: Genuinely accepting group norms (privately and publicly)
2)Identification: Identify with a group we value (publicly)
3) Compliance: Temporarily ‘Going along with others’ (publicly)
A01 Explanations for conformity
1) Informational Social Influence(ISI): A desire to be right, Go along with majority as you feel they are probably right
Cognitive process- people generally want to be right, leads to internalisation
Occurs in situations that are ambiguous
2)Normative Social Influence(NSI): A desire to fit in, ‘normal’ behaviour for a social group
Emotional process- people prefer social approval rather than rejection, leads to compliance
Occurs in unfamiliar situations with people you don’t know
A03 Evaluate Conformity Types and Explanations
1) Strength: Research support (NSI)
Asch found many people conformed due to being scared of disapproval
When ppts wrote down answers conformity fell to 12.5%
Shows that some conformity is due to the desire to not be rejected by a group for disagreeing
2) Strength: Research support (ISI)
Lucas et al found ppts conformed more to incorrect answers when math problems were difficult
Situation was ambiguous so they relied on others
Supports ISI because the results are what it would predict based on the desire to be right
3) Limitation: Individual differences
Some people are concerned about being liked by others- nAffiliators who have a strong need for affiliation (need to relate to others)
McGhee and Teevan found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
Shows NSI underlies conformity for some people more than others
A01 Outline Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment procedure.
-Set up mock prison in basement of university to investigate effect of social roles on conformity
-21 male student volunteers were involved in the study, randomly allocated to role of guard or prisoner
-Prisoners were strip searched, given a uniform and number (encouraged de-individuation) and had to request parole to leave
-Guards enforced rules, had own uniform with handcuffs etc.
A01 Outline Zimbardo’s SPE findings.
-Prisoners rebelled within 2 days, guards responded with harassment (head counts at night)
-Guards’ behaviour threatened the prisoners psychological and physical health:
1) Prisoners became subdued, anxious and depressed
2) 3 prisoners were released early due to showing signs of psychological disturbance
3) One prisoner went on a hunger strike, punished by being force fed and put in a tiny dark room
-Study ended after 6 days instead of the planned 14
-Social roles are powerful influences on behaviour- most conformed strongly to their role:
Guards became brutal, prisoners submissive
A03 Evaluate the Stanford Prison Experiment
1) Strength: Control over key variables
Emotionally stable ppts were involved and randomly allocated roles
Roles were only by chance so behaviour was due to the role itself not personality
Increased study’s internal validity, more confidence drawing conclusions about effect of social roles on conformity
2) Limitation: Lacked realism of a true prison
Banuazuzi and Mohavedi suggested ppts were play-acting, performances reflected stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to act
One guard based his role on a character from the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
Suggests SPE tells us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons (COUNTERPOINT: ppts believed it was a real prison, prisoner 461 believed it was a prison run by psychologists- suggests SPE replicated roles well, increasing internal validity)
3) Limitation: Zimbardo exaggerated the power of roles
Only a third of guards behaved brutally, the rest supported prisoners offering them cigarettes and privileges
Suggests SPE overstates the view that the guards were conforming to a brutal role and minimised dispositional influences e.g personality
A01 Outline Milgram’s Obedience study procedure.
-Recruited 40 American male ppts for a supposed study of memory
-A confederate (Mr Wallace) was always the ‘Learner’ while the true ppt was the ‘Teacher’
-An ‘Experimenter’ (another confederate) always wore a lab coat
-Teacher had to give the Learner an increasingly severe electric ‘Shock’ each time he made a mistake, shocks increased in 15-volt step ups up to 450volts
-Shocks were fake but the machine was labelled to make them look severe
-If the teacher wished to stop the Experimenter gave them a verbal ‘prod’ to continue
A01 Outline Milgram’s Obedience study findings
-5 ppts stopped at 300 volts
-65% continued to 450 volts (highest level)
-Ppts showed signs of extreme tension, three has ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’
-Before the study students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts (so results were unexpected)
-We obey legitimate authority even if that means our behaviour causes harm to someone else, certain situational factors encourage obedience
A03 Evaluate Milgram’s Obedience study
1) Strength: Replications have supported research findings
French TV game show contestants were paid to give fake electric shocks when ordered by presenter to other ppts
80% gave maximum volts to an ‘unconscious’ man, similiar to behaviour in Milgram’s ppts
This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority
2) Limitation: Lacked internal validity
Orne and Holland argued that ppts guessed the electric shocks were fake ‘play-acting’
Suggests ppts may have been responding to demand characteristics
3) Limitation: Ethical Issues
Ppts were decieved e.g they thought the shocks were real, Milgram dealt with this by debriefing ppts
Baumrind felt this deception could have serious consequences for ppts and researchers
Therefore research can damage the reputations of psychologists and their research in the eyes of the public
A01 Outline explanations for obedience based on situational variables
1) Proximity (Closeness of Teacher and Learner):
Teacher could hear Learner but not see him
In the proximity variation Teacher and Learner were in the same room and obedience rate dropped from 65% to 40%
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
2) Location (Prestige of setting):
Study was conducted in a run down building rather than prestigious Yale university
Obedience dropped to 47.5%
Obedience was higher in university because the setting was legitimate and had authority
3)Uniform (Communicates authority):
Obedience fell to 20% when there wasn’t a uniform worn by Experimenter
Uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority, someone with no uniform has less of a right to expect obedience
A03 Evaluate explanations for obedience based on situational variables
1) Strength: Research support
Bickman’s confederates dressed in different outfits and issued demands to people in New York
People were twice likely to obey ‘security guard’ rather than ‘jacket/tie’ confederate
Shows that a situational variable (e.g uniform) has a powerful effect on obedience
2) Strength: Cross-cultural replication of Milgram’s research
Dutch participants ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees
90% obedience, fell when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present)
Shows findings are not limited to American males
3) Limitation: Low internal validity
Orne and Holland said variations were even more likely to trigger suspicion due to experimental manipulation
Unclear whether results are due to obedience or ppt demand characteristics
A01 What is the Agentic state?
-Proposed by Milgram
-Obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an ‘agent’, someone who acts for or in place of another
-Feel no personal responsibilities for their actions
