SOCIAL INFLUENCE AO3 Flashcards
2 limitations of ASCH’s research into conformity to the majority
1) Artificial task and group: Ppts knew this was a study so maybe played along out of boredom or demand characteristics ∴ low external validity
2) Low population/temporal validity: all 123 ppts were American men in 1950s, may be more influenced by majority than Australian women today, for example ∴ cannot generalise findings
Strength of ASCH’s research into conformity to the majority
Evidence for task difficulty affecting conformity: LUCAS found when a maths problem was harder, conformity increased ∴ supports ASCH variation
2 strengths of the types and explanations of conformity theory
1) Evidence for normative social influence: When ASCH ppts wrote down there answers privately conformity dropped to 12.5% ∴ when no social pressure, no conformity
2) Evidence for informational social influence: LUCAS found when a maths problem was harder, conformity increased ∴ when confidence reduced, ISI occurred and conformity occurred
Limitation of the types and explanations of conformity theory
NSI does not predict conformity in all situations: for example “nAffiliators” personality types feel a much greater need to be liked and conform due to NSI, not predicted by NSI theory
2 limitations of ZIMBARDO’s Stanford prison experiment (SPE) study into conformity to social roles
1) SPE did not have realism of a true prison: so, some ppts were play-acting, e.g. guard “John Wayne” based behaviour off a character from a film - however, 90% of conversations were about prison life so quite realistic
2) ZIMBARDO maybe exaggerated power of roles: only 1/3 of the guards were brutal, whereas 1/3 were fair and another 1/3 actively helped the prisoners e.g. offer cigarettes
2 strengths of ZIMBARDO’s Stanford prison experiment (SPE) study into conformity to social roles
1) Controlled for key extraneous variables: e.g. ZIMBARDO’s ppts had pass a test for emotional stability, reducing chances of a sadistic personality affecting results.
2) random allocation to guard/prisoner roles meant no bias introduced ∴ increased internal validity
2 strength of MILGRAM’s study into obedience
1) Findings were replicated: Very similar experiment carried out on a French game show, 80% of ppts delivered max shock, very similar results ∴ shows findings were not due to special circumstances/ppts as findings replicated 50 years later in a different continent
2) Standardized procedure including 4 scripted prompts increases reliability
2 limitations of MILGRAM’s study into obedience
1) Low internal validity: around 25-50% of ppts did not believe the shocks were real, so is possible they were play-acting due to demand characteristics and did not truly believe they were harming others
2) Conclusion on blind obedience may be incorrect: when ppts told “had no choice and must obey”, every ppt disobeyed ∴ social identity theory is better explanation as it says the ppts were only obeyed bc they identified with aims of scientific research
2 strengths of MILGRAM’s situational variables studies into obedience
1) Support for uniform study: BICKMAN found that people twice as likely to obey confederate in security guard uniform than obey pedestrian
2) Cross-cultural replication: Dutch study found 90% obedience in a more realistic MILGRAM-style task
Limitation of MILGRAM’s situational variables studies into obedience
1) Low internal validity as ppts may be aware of faked procedure: Even Milgram admitted that uniform variable (replaced by “member of public”) was very fake and unrealistic
One strength and one limitation of Agentic state situational explanation of obedience
+) MILGRAM’s studies support it: Most ppts resisted at some point, but when reassured they were not responsible (binding factor) they continued ∴ when not responsible, ppts acted as an agent
-) Does not explain all situations: RANK and JACOBSON found 16/18 nurses did not obey a doctor, and 35% of MILGRAM did not obey
One strength and one limitation of Legitimacy of Authority situational explanation of obedience
+) Explains cultural differences: 16% of Australian women obey, 85% of Germans obey ∴ supports as shows is due to societal authority
-) Cannot explain all (dis)obedience: RANK and JACOBSON nurses disobey a clear superior - a doctor
2 limitations of Authoritarian Personality dispositional explanation of obedience and Adorno’s research into it
1) Authoritarianism cannot explain mass obedience: did all 1940s Germans have an authoritarian personality?
2) ADORNO’s F(fascist)-scale only measures tendency toward right-wing extremism, not left-wing extremism i.e. Chinese Maoism
Strength of Authoritarian Personality dispositional explanation of obedience and Adorno’s research into it
MILGRAM’s study supports it: Fully obedient ppts. from Milgram completed the F-scale, and had a significantly higher score than the disobedient ppts. ∴ obedient people share characteristics with authoritarian personality
2 strengths of social support (situational) explanation of resistance to social influence
1) MILGRAM’s variable supports this: when another person disobeys in Milgram, obedience drops from 65% to 10% ∴ challenges legitimacy of authority figure
2) ASCH’s unanimity variable: when ppt had support in correct answer, conformity dropped from 36.8% to 5%
1 strength and 1 limitation of locus of control (dispositional) explanation of resistance to social influence
+) Locus of control is linked to MILGRAM study obedience: 37% of internals disobeyed, compared to 23% of externals
-) meta-analysis: over time, obedience decreased but LOC became external ∴ if obedience and LOC were linked, expect LOC to become internal
2 strengths of minority influence theory
1) Support for consistency: MOSCOVICI (blue-green slides study) found that ppts conformed to a consistent (and incorrect) minority 8.42%, whereas inconsistent 1.25%, and not at all 0.25%
2) MARTIN supports minority influence causing deeper processing: those who heard minority agree with an opinion were less willing to change opinion than those who heard majority agree
2 limitations of minority influence theory
1) Artificial tasks: Moscovici’s blue-green slides and other studies are far removed from everyday situations of minority influence e.g. politics ∴ lack external validity and generalisability
2) Artificial minorities: the situations in these studies e.g. MARTIN are very different to real-life minorities, where they are very committed to their cause and face hostile opposition
