Social influence essay plan Flashcards
Types and explanations of conformity essay plan
AO1: Internalisation, identification, compliance, ISI, NSI
-P: Individual differences in NSI
E: McGhee and Teevan (1967) found nAffliators more likely to conform
E:People less concerned w/ being liked less affected by NSI, nAffliators have greater need for association
E: Desire to be liked is part of conformity for some more than others
L: Inaccurate to generalise reasons for conforming
-P: ISI and NSI work together
E: Often both involved e.g. Asch experiment, conformity reduced when there’s 1 other dissenting participant. Dissenter may reduce NSI power (diss provides social support) or reduce ISI power (alternate info source)
E: Cast doubt on Deutsch and Gerrard’s “two-process” approach=behaviour is either due to NSI or ISI
E: Shows its not always possible to see if it is NSI or ISI. This is the case in lab studies and more in rela-life conformity
L: Two-process approach is weak, doubt over ISI and NSI operating independently
+P: Research support for NSI
E: Asch (1951) many participants conformed
E: Asked why, some felt self-conscious, afraid of disapproval
E: When Asch repeated study and asked participants to write answers down, conformity rates fell to 12.5%
L: NSI supported by Asch (1951)
Asch’s research essay plan
AO1: Procedure, findings, Asch’s variations (group size, unanimity, task difficulty)
-P:Ethical issues
E: Deception, participants thought confederates were true participants
E: Any consent gained before study did not include this, embarrasment, psychological harm
E: Ethical costs should be weighed up against benefits gained
L: Asch’s research involoved deceiving participants, ethically wrong/Benefits were enough to explain ethics
-P:Artifical situation and task
E:Knew they were in research study, may have gone along with demands of situation, demand characteristics
E: Identifying lines=relatively trivial, no reason not to conform
E: “Asch’s groups were not very groupy” Fiske (2014), doesn’t resemble groups we encounter irl
L: Findings don’t generalise to everyday situations, especially where conformity could be more important
-P: Limited application of findings
E: Only men tested by Asch, other research suggests women might be more conformist
E: Women may be more concerned about social relationships (and being accepted)
E: Men from US (Asch’s study)=individualist culture (more concerned about themself than social group)
L: Asch’s findings can only be generalised to American men/ male, individualist cultures and othr conformity levels could be higher
Stanford prison experiment/Zimbardo essay plan
AO1:
Reason for Zimbardo’s research
Procedure, findings, conclusion
AO3:
+ P: Good control over variables
E: Individuals randomly chosen when assigning roles, tried to reduce individual personality differences
E: If guards and prisoners behaved v differently, in roles by chance, behaviours due to the situation
E: More confident drawing conclusions from study
L: Increased internal validity
-/+ P: Lack of realism
E: Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued participants were play-acting, not genuinely conforming to a role. One guard claimed he based his role on brutual character from the film Cool Hand Luke
E: Would mean perfromances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are meant to behave. Would mean prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners did
E: Zimbardo argued quantitative data gathered during SPE showed 90% of prisoners’ convos were about prison life. Prisoner 416 thought the prison was real, but run by psychologists, not the gov
L: High internal validity (situation was real to participants)
- P: Ethical issues
E: Zimbardo = superintendent. Student spoke to Zimbardo asking to leave, Zimbardo responded like the student was a prisoner wanting to be released
E: Lack of fully informed consent - participants were arrested at their homes w/out prior knowledge
L: Put participants at risk of psychological harm
Milgram original study essay plan
AO1:
Why research took place, procedure, findings
AO3:
+ P: Supporting replication
E: Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) = documentary about reality TV on French TV 2010, includes replication of Milgram
E: Contestants thought they were in new game show where they were paid to give (fake) electric shocks when ordered by the presenter to other participants (actors) in front of studio auduience. 80% of participants delivered max shock of volts to an “unconscious” man. nervous laughter, nail biting etc
L: Gives Milgram’s findings temporal validity (Milgram 1963, Le Jeu de la Mort 2010)
- P: Low internal validity
E: Orne and Holland (1968) argued participants guessed there were no real electric shocks, meaning they had such extreme behaviour because they didn’t believe the set up
E: Gina Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and found many expressed doubt about the shocks
E: Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study with real shocks given to a puppy. 54% male participants and 100% female delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
L: Suggests effects were genuine as people behaved the same way with real shocks, Milgram reported 70% of participants said they believed shocks were genuine
+ P: Good external validity
E: Central feature of situation was relationship between authority figure and participant
E: Milgram argued lab environment reflects wider authority relationships in real life
E: Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on hospital ward, found levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were v high (21/22 nurses obeyed)
L: Process of obedience to authority in Milgram’s study can be generalised to other situations, valuable info on how obedience operates in real life
Situational variables AO1 + x3 AO3` essay plan
AO1:
Uniform - Experimenter wearing grey lab coat had to take call, replaced by ordinary member of public (confederate), obedience = 20% (lowest)
Proximity - Teacher and learner in same room = 40% obedience. Teacher forced learner’s hand on electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question = 30%. Experimenter gives instructions via phone (left room) = 20.5%. Participants frequently faked giving shocks/gave weaker ones
Location - Study in run down building = 47.5%
AO3:
+ P: Research support
E: Field experiment in NYC, Bickman (1974) had 3 confederates dress in jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and security guard’s uniform, stood in street asking passers-by to pick up litter or give confederate coin for parking meter. x2 likely to obey the “security guard” than the jacket and tie
E: Supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform provides authority and is a situational variables causing obedience
L: Increased external validity
+ P: Cross-culture replications
E: Miranda et al. (1981) found obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students
E: Suggests Milgram’s findings and conclusions are not limited to American males, valid across cultures and apply to females too
E: Smith and Bond (1998) point out most replications take place in Western, developed societies (e.g. Spain, Australia), not that culturally different to US, hard to conclude Milgram’s situational variable findings apply to every culture
L: Can still be applied to Western cultures
- P: Lack of internal validity
E: Orne and Holland suggested that participants in Milgram’s ORIGINAL study worked out the procedure was faked
E: Even more likely in variables due to extra manipulation e.g. experimenter replaced by “member of the public”, Milgram recognised this situation was so contrived some may have worked out the truth
E: Unclear whether results are due to the operation of obedience or because participants saw through the deception and acted accordingly (demand characteristics)
L: Demand characteristics
Social-psychological factors essay plan
AO1:
Define agent,, autonomous state, binding factors, moral strain, legitimacy of authority, destructive authority, social hierarchy
AO3:
+ P: Research support
E: Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed students a flim of Milgram’s study and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner (Mr Wallace). Students blamed the “experimenter” not the participants, indicated the responsibility due to legitimate authority (experimenter was top of the hierarchy, thus had legitimate authority) but also due to expert authoroity (he was a scientist)
E: Students therefore recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience
L: External validity for explanation of obedience
- P: Can’t explain all obedience
E: Research evidence to show Nazi behaviour can’t be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift. Mandel (1998) described when German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men obeyed ordes to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland despite them not having direct orders to do so (told they could be assigned other duties if preferred)
E: Behaviour challenges the agentic state explanation, acted autonomously out of choice, different to Milgram’s idea of destructive authority
E: Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue legitimacy of authority helps explain My Lai massacre in term of the US Army power hierarchy
L: Limited real-life application that can help prevent destructuve authority e.g. education on how to resist/challenge legitimate authority
+ P: Cultural differences
E: Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia, found onluy 16% of participants went to top of voltage scale. Mantell found the same figure for Germans was 85%
E: In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and cause obedience
E: Reflects the ways different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
L: Increased validity of explanation
Dispositional explanations esssay plan
AO1:
Why Adorno did his research, procedure, F-scale, findings, authoritarian characteristics, origin of authoritarian personality
AO3:
- P: Research support (correlational)
E: Milgram and his assistant Elms (1966) conducted interviews w/ small sample of fully obedient participants who scored high on F-scale, believeing that there might be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality
E: Link is only a correlationbetween two measured variables. Could be a third factor involved. Both obedience and authoritarian personality may be associated w/ lower level of education e.g.
E: No matter how strong a correlation is, can’t say defo caused it
L: Reduces validity of the explanation
- P: Methodological problems
E: Explanation based on flawed methodology: Each item is worded in the same direction, acquiescence bias possible
E: Agreeing with a statement regardless of the content, could get high score for authoritarianism by ticking the same box over again
E: Adorno and colleagues also interviewed participants about childhood experiences but they knew the participants’ test scores (knew who had authoritarian personality) (questionning could be guided by this knowledge) and knew the hypothesis of the study. Vulnerable to interviewer bias as interviewer knew what answers were needed to support hypothesis
L: The method the personality explanation is based on is potentially flawed/interviewer bias - P: Limited explanation
E: Pre-war Germany, millions displayed obedient, racist, anti-Semitic behavior depite differing in their personalities in different ways
E: Alternative explanation much more realistic, social identity
E: Daniel Goldhagen (1996) argued in Hitler’s Willing Executioners, majority od the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the “outgroup” of Jews
L: Fails to explain real-life examples, lacks validity?
