social influence eval

Question 1

give the ethical evaluation point of Asch’s research

4 marks

Answer 1

there were ethical issues with Asch’s research

participants were deceived as they believed the confederates were also participants taking part in the ‘visual perception test’

they needed to be conceived to test conformity of an obvious answer

had they known, they may have given a different answer meaning the findings wouldn’t be valid

Question 2

give the validity evaluation point of Asch’s research

4 marks

Answer 2

Asch’s experiment was artificial

the task of identifying which line matched a target line is trivial

task lacked mundane realism- not similar to tasks in everyday life situations

showed people conformed to obvious answers to fit into group- important fact about human behaviour

Question 3

give the generalisability evaluation point of Asch’s research
2 marks

Answer 3

the findings of Asch’s research are not representative of all genders

123 males were used - no female

means the findings cannot be applied to everyone as the conformity rates of men and women may be different (beta bias- little difference between male and female behaviour)

Question 4

give the Asch as supporting research to NSI

3 marks

Answer 4

research to support NSI explanation comes from Asch’s experiment- pp knew the group was wrong privately but chose to conform in order to be accepted

pp interview after said- conformed to avoid rejection

evidence to suggest NSI is valid theory of why people conform as states we want to be part of social group, not because we believe group is right

Question 5

give the Lucas et al (2006) as supporting research to ISI

3 marks

Answer 5

research to support ISI comes from Lucas et al (2006)

he asked students to answer maths q that were easy/ difficult

found higher conformity to wrong answers on difficult qs

shows people conform in situ when they don’t know the answer

therefore evidence to support ISI as exp of conformity that we look to other people when we want to be right in a difficult situation

Question 6

give the counterargument to NSI

3 marks

Answer 6

despite evidence to support role of NSI in diff social situs there’s individual differences in processes

some research shows NSI doesn’t affect everyone’s behaviour in same way

people that are less concerned with being liked- less affected

desire to be liked underlies conformity for some

weakens exp of conformity as doesn’t explain everyone behaviour

Question 7

give a strength of Zimbardo’s research

Answer 7

Zimbardo + colleagues had some control over variables

regarding selection of pps, emotionally stable chosen

1 way which researchers tried to rule out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings

increases internal validity

Question 8

give the reliability weakness of Zimbardo’s experiment

Answer 8

there is a lack of supporting research that pps ‘naturally’ and easily conformed to roles just because they were assigned

Reicher and Haslam (2006) partially replicated and found prisoners took control and subjected guards to harassment and disobedience

challenges that individuals simply take on role

Question 9

give the ethical weakness with Zimbardos experiment

Answer 9

major ethical issue with dual roles

1 pp wanted to leave- told Zim when superintendent

Zim responded worrying about running of prison not as researcher with responsibilities to pps

pp had to stay longer- risk of psych harm and prevented right to withdraw

Question 10

Give the ethical weakness of Milgrams experiment

4 marks

Answer 10

milgram deceived pps as he said was on ‘punishment and learning’

actually measuring obedience, pretended learner was receiving electric shocks

pp wont be able to give informed consent

may lose trust in psych and not take part again- unethical

however reduces researcher effects and inc accuracy

Question 11

Give the generalisability weakness of Milgrams experiment

3 marks

Answer 11

lacked population validity

used a bias sample of 40 American male volunteers

no females or other ages- level of obedience may be different

less accurate, reduces validity, cant be applied- Beta bias

Question 12

Give the validity strength of Milgrams experiment

Answer 12

further support - Sheridan and King (1972)

conducted similar study- real shocks given to puppy. 54% male participants and 100% women delivered what they thought was fatal shock

increase validity- males and females
increased gentility because real shocks

increased reliability for mil
increase validity of obedience to authority

Question 13

how is uniform linked to obedience?

Answer 13

uniform is valid exp for obedience

Bickman had 3 confed- one wore jacket and tie, one milkman and one security guard— asked public to pick up litter or pay money for parking

more likely to obey security

supports situational variables ex shows that uniform impact levels of obedience shown in everyday situ

Question 14

have situational variable studies been replicated

Answer 14

yes in other cultures

Miranda et al (1981) found obedience rate over 90% spanish students

valid exp

can explain how uniform, proximity and location can affect obedience levels in cultures worldwide

Question 15

do situational variables really affect obedience?

Answer 15

can be critisiced for providing an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour

mandel (1998)- offensive to survivors of Holocaustto suggest Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situ variables beyond their control

not very sensitive and can be viewed negatively.

Question 16

what is some supporting evidence for the legitimacy of authority as exp of obedience?

Answer 16

Blass and Schmitt showed film of Milgram study to students, asked to identify who was responsible for harm to leaner.

blamed ‘experimenter’ - not pp

due to legitimacy pf authority- experimenter at top of authority hierarchy ins situ and therefore legitimate.

shows that students recognised legitimacy of authority as cause of obedience - support for exp

Question 17

how can legitimacy of authority be applied to real-life war crimes?

Answer 17

Kelman and Hamilton argue that the My Lai massacre, where 500 unarmed Vietnamese civilians were killed my American soldiers - power of hierarch in US army

soldiers argued those higher were the orders they followed

practical applications

possibility that it could help us how to prevent crimes in future- challenge LOA rather then mindlessly obeying.

Question 18

what does Tarnow say about LOA?

Answer 18

Tarnow provided support for the power of LOA through a study of aviation accidents

studied data from all serious aircraft accidents in US between 1978 and 1990, where there was a flight voice recorder and where flight crew actions were a contributing factor to crash.

Tarnow found - excessive dependence on captains authority and expertise

one officer claimed they knew the captain was taking risky route- ‘the captain must know what he is doing’

shows power that a LA can have over individuals in real world
support provided

Question 19

applying Milgram, give a limitation of the agentic state

Answer 19

does not explain research findings

doesnt explain why some of Milgrams pps did not obey

as humans involved in social hierarchies all pp should have obeyed and given responsibility to experimenter (only case for 65%)

agentic shift only accounts for some situ of obedience

Question 20

what is a strength of the agentic shift?

Answer 20

Blass and Schmitt showed Milgram to student and asked who was responsible for harm

students blamed experimenter

easy to see how teacher would’ve given up responsibility and entered agentic state- continue electric shocks

valid explanation

Question 21

what is a weakness of agentic state

Answer 21

suggests behaviour is not controlled by individuals

free will can be given up- deterministic

doesn’t fit with judiciary system that suggests we have power over our actions and should be held responsible for the consequences of them

Question 22

what is the research to support the dispositional explanation of obedience

Answer 22

Milgram and Elms conducted interviews with some pps

those highly obedient- significantly more authoritarian on F-scale than disobedient

link between authoritarian personality and obedience

Question 23

what is the limited explanation point to the authoritarian personality?

Answer 23

individual personality exp of obedience cannot easily explain the behaviour of country’s majority

not likely that all Germans who were obedient, racist and anti-Semitic had AP

limitation of Adorno theory- clear alternative exp us more realistic; social identity theory.

majority of Germans identified with anti-Semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ pf Jews

limits applicability

Question 24

what is the correlation but not causation revisited point about AP?

Answer 24

the link between AP and harsh parenting is only correlational

no way to establish cause and effect as experiments cant be carried out- unethical

dint know true reason for AP

limits validity

Question 25

what did Allen and levine find about social supports

Answer 25

conformity to majority view impacts when social support arrived

Allen and Levine found pps were more likely to dissent when dissenter first Confed, rather than 4th

earlier pps judgement conformed, better

factors can impact how well social support prevents social influence

Question 26

what did Asch find about social support?

Answer 26

does not have to be valid to be effective

even if another dissenter gives wrong answer, allows pp to dissent too

although rate of conformity was lowest (5.5%) when dissenter gave correct ans, only 9% conformity when dissenter gave another incorrect ans

shows power of social support can help people resist conformity

Question 27

what does Gamson find out about social support?

Answer 27

research support for role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience

Gamson et al (1982) asked pps to produce evidence for oil company to run smear campaign

found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram - 29/33 groups of pps (88%) rebelled

probs because pp in Gam were in groups, peer support is linked to greater resistance

Question 28

give supporting evidence of locus of control

Answer 28

Research supports the idea that individuals with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist the pressure to obey.

Oliner & Oliner (1998) interviewed non-Jewish survivors of WWII compared those who had resisted orders and protected Jewish people from the Nazi’s

found that the 406 ‘rescuers’, who had resisted orders, were more likely to have a high internal locus of control,

in comparison to the 126 people who had simply followed orders.

These results appear to support the idea that a high internal locus of control makes individuals less likely to follow orders, although there are many other factors that may have caused individuals to follow orders in WWII and difficult to conclude that locus of control is the only factor.

Question 29

give a weakness of LOC

Answer 29

LOC in resisting social influence may be exaggerated

Rotter (1982) LOC only comes into play in novel or new situ - little influence in everyday

only helpful in narrow range of new situ

even if people have internal LOC people who have conformed or obeyed in specific situations are likely to do so again

Question 30

give a weakness of minority influence

Answer 30

Also Moscovici (1969) used female students as participants (i.e. unrepresentative sample),

so it would be wrong to generalize his result to all people – they only tell us about the behavior of female students.

also only 4 people- not enough

Question 31

give a strength of social influence and social change

Answer 31

research support for normative influences i social change

Nolan et al (2008) hung messages on front doors for month - suggested residents were trying to reduce their energy usage

control group had messages that asked to save energy- no reference to others behaviour

significant decreases n energy usage in first group showing conformity can lead to social change through NSI

Question 32

how does Moscovicis research link to social influence and social change?

Answer 32

argues that minority and majority influence involve diff cognitive processes

minority influence is thought to cause individuals to think more deep ab issue

Mackie disagrees and presented evidence that majority influence - deeper processing if do not share same— we like to believe others share our views

when we find majority don’t, we have to think about their arguments

means the central element of the process of minority influence has been challenged and may be incorrect