Social influence evaluation

Question 1

Give some criticisms about Milgram’s situational study

Answer 1

Unethical(deception,psychological/physical harm)
lacked mundane realism (perry) - Ps sceptical about whether the study was real. takeo murata divided participants into what he believed were doubters and believers. Believers more likely to disobey give low intensity shocks.

Question 2

Describe the effect of proximity on obedience?

Answer 2

In the prox study teacher + learner were in the same room obedience rates dropped to 40%.
In an more extreme variation the teacher forced the hand of the learner onto the shock plate obedience rate fell to 30%.
giving instructions through telephone 21% 450V

Question 3

Describe the effect of location on obedience?

Answer 3

The studies were done at Yale.
Milgram moved his study to a run down office in Bridgeport, with no obvious affiliations to Yale. Obedience rates dropped but not by much 48% of participants delivered the 450 volt max shock (65% in the yale study)

Question 4

Describe the effect of uniform on obedience?

Answer 4

Bushman (1988) carried out a study where a female researcher dressed either in a “police style” uniform, as a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people on the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter.
Uniform: 72% obeyed
Business executive: 48%
Beggar: 52%

Question 5

Talk about social support and resisting obedience

Answer 5

Research has shown that individuals are generally more confident in their ability to resist temptation if they have an ally who is willing to join them to oppose the authority figure.
e.g In Milgram’s variation the participant was in a group of 3 testing the learner the other 2 were confederates who one, after the other refused to continue shocking and withdrew.
10% of participants went to 450 volts.

Question 6

evaluate agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Answer 6

1. the agentic state explain and real-life obedience. gradual and irreversible transition lifton (1986) found.
   doctors at Auschwitz caring to vile lethal exps. staub (1989) not agentic shift but experience of evil acts changes individs behaviour and thoughts.
2. legitimacy can serve as the basis for justifying harm to others - immoral actions under the influence of obedience not matter how destructive.

Question 7

evaluate the authoritarian personality

Answer 7

1. social context is more important - milgram believed that PUL was the primary cause of differences in P’s levels of obedience.
2. research evidence - dambrun and vatiné (2010) actor = learner filmed, recorded and displayed on screen. simulation but responded as real clear sig correlation between RWA and max volt shock

Question 8

Evaluate social support

Answer 8

1. Rees and Wallace (2015) - individs with maj of friends were sig more likely to have engage in drunkenness and binge drinking over the previous 12 months. resisted drinking if had friend or two who refused. con with lab exps.
2. the importance of response order - Allen levine (1969) 1 condition confederate first gave right answer, other confederates wrong answer. real p answered last (fifth) . 2nd condition con answered fourth. support sig more effective in position 1 than 4

Question 9

evaluate minority influence

Answer 9

1. research support for flexibility - nemeth and brilmayer (1987) - ski lift (compensation) suggests flexibility works in certain situations later rather than early “caved in”
2. do we really process the minority’s message more - mackie (1987) - majority more likely to create greater processing - assume maj shares our views, if they don’t we must consider carefully why. minority’s message more influential.

Question 10

Evaluate LOC

Answer 10

1. Spector (1983) measured locus of control and predisposition to normative and informational social influence in 157 undergraduates. Sig correlation between loc and pre to nsi. no relation between pre ISI and LOC. External conform normative pressure not informational.
2. Research support Avtgis (1998) meta analysis relationship between LOC and forms of SI. sig +ve correlation relationships between scores of internality/ externality and scores on measures of persuasion, social, influence and conformity. high ext loc easily persuaded, conforming and influence than internals