Social Influence AO3 Flashcards
Strength of explanations of conformity (NSI).
Supporting evidence.
Asch interviewed his ppts, finding conformed as they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer as they were afraid of disapproval. Conformity fell to 12.5% when writing answers down due to privacy and lack of group pressure.
Showing some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing.
Strength of explanations of conformity (ISI).
Supporting evidence.
Lucas et al found ppts conformed more often to incorrect answers given when the maths problems were difficult. When they were easy ppt ‘knew their minds’ but when hard it was ambiguous. Ppts didn’t want to be wrong so relied on answers given.
Showing what ISI predicts.
Weakness of explanations of conformity (NSI).
NSI doesn’t always predict conformity.
Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others (nAffiliators). It has been found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
This means there are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by NSI.
Lack of distinction between NSI and ISI.
Often hard to determine if ISI or NSI is at work.
Asch found conformity to reduce when there was another dissenting ppt. This may reduce the power of NSI due to social support or ISI due to providing another source of information.
Hard to separate the process, they may instead operate together.
Strength of compliance.
Asch’s findings - ppts knowingly gave incorrect answers even though they believed the correct answer to be different, reporting they did so as to not stand out.
This shows a mismatch between private beliefs and public behaviour to fit the norm.
However, this was undertaken in the 1950s after the war which was a conformist time in the US in attempts to establish social norms.
Strength of internalisation.
Jenness’ findings - ppt claimed they believed others had gotten the right estimates so changed theirs accordingly.
This shows a change in private opinions and behaviours and display of these publically due to believing the others were right.
Strength of identification.
Zimbardo’s findings - ppts were told to play the roles of either prisoner or guard, identifying strongly with their groups, and conforming within.
Weakness of Asch and Jenness’ research.
Tasks were unimportant and inconsequential. If the stakes are higher compliance and internalisation may not be as likely.
cannot explain real-life conformity when the consequences are greater.
Weakness of Asch support for GUT.
Low temporal validity.
A repeated study in the UK with engineering students found only 1 person to conform in 396 trials.
Society has changed now and we are in a less conformist and more independent culture as opposed to in the 1950s when his study was carried out.
Validity of Asch study for GUT.
Lacks ecological validity.
All American male ppts who were strangers. NSI is more likely to be caused by groups of friends. Some research also suggests women to be more conformist. This suggests that although Asch found group size to increase conformity this is unlikely to transfer to real life.
Strength of Jenness’ support for task difficulty.
Jenness had an ambiguous task in which people conformed changing guesses based if itheres in response to ISI.
Supporting task difficulty to increase conformity.
Appropriateness of learning about variables affecting conformity.
Necessary to teach young people about resisting conformity/peer pressure in dangerous situations.
One dissenter reduces NSI, breaking unanimity and reducing peer pressure.
Strength of SPE - Zimbardo.
High control over variables.
Only emotionally stable individuals were used to rule out individual personality differences as a potential explanation.
If they behaved very differently, but the roles were by chance behaviour must have been due to the role itself.
Increased internal validity, increasing confidence in the conclusions drawn.
Ethical issues of SPE - Zimbardo.
Zimbardo didn’t protect ppts from psychological harm - many appeared to have breakdowns which weren’t responded to quickly enough.
They didn’t truly have the right to withdraw as he made it difficult for them to leave, so they felt trapped.
Informed consent wasn’t gained - they were unaware of being arrested in their homes at 2 am to start.
However, Zimbardo argues this doesn’t take away from the validity of the findings nor the importance of the study.
Weakness of SPE - Zimbardo.
Exaggeration of the power of roles to influence behaviour.
1/3 behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly, and the rest tried to help and support prisoners. Most could resist the situational pressure to conform to a brutal role.
Suggesting Zimbardo minimised the influence of dispositional factors.
Research support for Milgram.
Findings were replicated in a French documentary.
Ppts were paid to give electric shocks to other ppts in front of an audience. 80% delivered the maximum shock to an apparently unconscious man. behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s ppts - nervous laughter, nail-biting etc.
SHowing Milgram’s findings weren’t due to special circumstances.
Strength of Milgram’s research.
Replicated in other cultures.
A more realistic procedure studying obedience in Dutch ppts found 905 of ppts obeyed, saying stressful things to a confederate ‘desperate for a job’. Findings were also replicated where proximity was concerned.
However, this may only be the case in cultures with similar notions about the role of authority in the US as only two studies within countries with significant cultural differences have been replicated.
Weakness of Milgram’s research.
Low internal validity.
Milgram reported that 75% of ppts believed the shocks were genuine. However, Orne and Holland argued ppts acted as they did because they didn’t believe in the set-up.
Suggesting ppts were responding to demand characteristics.
Strength of variables affecting obedience.
Milgram’s findings support this explanation.
The proximity of the experimenter, teacher and learner, location of study and presence of a uniform are all factors that influence obedience.
However, Mandel argued this offers an excuse for evil behaviour, offensive to holocaust survivors to suggest the Nazis were simply obeying orders, victims themselves due to these factors.
Weakness of variable affecting obedience.
Ppts may have been aware the procedure was fake.
The likelihood of them being aware of variations was increased because of the manipulation of variables. Milgram recognised ppt likely worked out the truth when the experimenter was a ‘member of the public’.
Unclear if the findings are genuine or whether ppts saw through the deception.
Strength for legitimacy of authority.
(Obedience explanation).
Explains cultural differences in obedience.
Studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient. Found 16% of Australian women went to 450V as opposed to 80% of German ppts.
Showing in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate.
Weakness for legitimacy of authority.
(Obedience explanation).
Cannot explain all instances of disobedience in hierarchies where LoA is accepted and clear.
Nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s studies were mostly disobedient despite working in a hierarchal authority structure.
Suggesting some people may just be more or less obedient than others, innate tendencies may have a greater influence on behaviour.
Strength of agentic state.
(Obedience explanation).
Research support for its role in conformity.
Blass and Schmitt found people who said the experimenter was to blame for harm caused when shown videos of Milgram’s original study.
Supporting that ppts believed they weren’t responsible but acting as agents of the experimenter.
Weakness of agentic state.
(Obedience explanation).
Doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience.
Rank and Jacobson found that 16 of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient.
Suggesting agentic shifts can only account for some situations.
