Social Influence AO3

Question 1

Strength of explanations of conformity (NSI).

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Strength of explanations of conformity (ISI).

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

Weakness of explanations of conformity (NSI).

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Lack of distinction between NSI and ISI.

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Strength of compliance.

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

Strength of internalisation.

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Strength of identification.

Answer 7

Zimbardo’s findings - ppts were told to play the roles of either prisoner or guard, identifying strongly with their groups, and conforming within.

Question 8

Weakness of Asch and Jenness’ research.

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Weakness of Asch support for GUT.

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

Validity of Asch study for GUT.

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Strength of Jenness’ support for task difficulty.

Answer 11

Jenness had an ambiguous task in which people conformed changing guesses based if itheres in response to ISI.
Supporting task difficulty to increase conformity.

Question 12

Appropriateness of learning about variables affecting conformity.

Answer 12

Necessary to teach young people about resisting conformity/peer pressure in dangerous situations.
One dissenter reduces NSI, breaking unanimity and reducing peer pressure.

Question 13

Strength of SPE - Zimbardo.

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Ethical issues of SPE - Zimbardo.

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Weakness of SPE - Zimbardo.

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Research support for Milgram.

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Strength of Milgram’s research.

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Weakness of Milgram’s research.

Answer 18

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.

Question 19

Strength of variables affecting obedience.

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Weakness of variable affecting obedience.

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

Strength for legitimacy of authority.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Weakness for legitimacy of authority.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

Strength of agentic state.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Weakness of agentic state.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Strength of authoritarian personality.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 25

Supportive research.
Elmes and Milgram found those that shocked to full 450v scored higher on the F-scale than those who refused.
This supports Adorno et al’s view that those who are obedient show similar characteristics to those with authoritarian personalities.
However, correlational research, cause and effect cannot be established. Not all of Milgram’s ppts who were obedient had an authoritarian personality.

Question 26

Weakness of authoritarian personality.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 26

Cannot explain obedience in the majority of a country’s population.
In pre-war Germany, millions displayed obedience/anti-semitic behaviour, despite differing personalities, it is unlikely they were all authoritarian.
This means an alternative explanation is more realistic.

Question 27

Political bias in authoritarian personality.
(Obedience explanation).

Answer 27

F-Scale measures the tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology.
Argued to be a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality. The extreme right and left-wing ideologies have a lot in common, both emphasise the importance of complete obedience to political authority.
Doesn’t account for obedience across the whole political spectrum.

Question 28

Strength of social support.
(Resistance to social influence).

Answer 28

Evidence to support the role of dissenting peers.
Gamson et al found higher levels of resistance than Milgram did. Ppts were in groups and could discuss what they were told to do, 88% rebelled against orders.
Showing peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of authority.

Question 29

Support for effects of social support.
(Resistance to social influence).

Answer 29

Positive effects.
Albrecht et al helped pregnant adolescents resist peer pressure to smoke providing social support through a buddy. Those with a buddy were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group without buddies at the end.
Showing social support can help adolescents resist social influence with intervention in the real world.

Question 30

Strength of Locus of Control.
(Resistance to social influence).

Answer 30

Supportive evidence.
Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study measuring if ppts were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals resisted compared to 23% of externals.
This shows resistance is partly linked to LOC.

Question 31

Weakness of Locus of Control.
(Resistance to social influence).

Answer 31

Contradictory research.
Twenge et al found in an analysis of data that people become more resistant to obedience but also more external.
We would expect people to become more internal if LOC is linked to resistance.
Suggests LOC isn’t a valid explanation.

Question 32

Weakness of minority influence.

Answer 32

Artifical tasks.
Moscoviivi et al set the task to identify a slide colour. This is far removed from how minorities attempt to change behaviour in real life. In cases such as Jury decision-making, outcomes are vastly more important.
This means findings lack external validity and are limited in what they tell about minority influence in real life.

Question 33

Support for consistency - Minority influence.

Answer 33

Moscovici et al’s slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect than an inconsistent opinion.
This suggests presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority influencing a majority

Question 34

Support for deeper processing - Minority influence.

Answer 34

Martin et al found people were less willing to change their original opinions if they had listened to a minority group than a majority when later exposed to a view conflicting with the first viewpoint shown.
Suggesting the minority message has been deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
However, it lacks ecological validity, in real life the majority usually have more power and status, with minorities needing to be extremely committed factors lacking in minority influence research.

Question 35

Weakness of social change.

Answer 35

Deeper processing may not play a role in minorities bringing about social change.
Mackie presents evidence that majority influence may create deeper processing if you don’t share their views as we like to believe others share our views, thinking the same as us. If a majority thinks differently we must question why this is.
This challenges the central element of minority influence causing social change.

Question 36

Strength of social change.

Answer 36

Minority influence can explain how change is brought about.
Nemeth claims social change is due to the type of thinking minorities inspire, when considering these arguments they engage in divergent thinking (which is broader). Leading to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues.

Question 37

Support for normative influences.

Answer 37

Nolan et al found that when messages were hung on doors to change energy habits those with messages that held a reference to others’ behaviours had a significant decrease in energy usage compared to those without.
Showing conformity can lead to social change through NSI.
However, other studies have found behaviour doesn’t always change through expressing them to social norms, suggesting that NSI doesn’t always produce drastic nor long term social change.