Social Influence - Evaluation

Question 1

1st Strength of Asch’s study?

Answer 1

High control -> uses the experimental method + has high control over extraneous variables + can establish cause + effect - lab experiment = the researcher is more confident that IV (confed answers) is impacting the DV (p.p’s answers) -> + = results conformity are not being affected by confounding variables + high degree of internal validity.

Question 2

2nd Strength of Asch’s study?

Answer 2

Research support -> Lucas et al (2006) asked p.ps to solve ‘easy’ + ‘hard’ maths problems - p.ps were given answers from 3 others (confeds) + p.ps conformed more often when the problem was ‘harder’ -> + = Asch’s study has a degree of validity.

Question 3

1st Limitation of Asch’s study?

Answer 3

Limited sample -> Asch’s p.ps were American male students - gender biased + results on conformity cannot necessarily be generalised to females, non-Americans and non students = low population validity.

Question 4

2nd Limitation of Asch’s study?

Answer 4

Low ecological validity -> p.ps knew they were in a research study = demand characteristics - the task of identifying lines was relatively trivial + therefore no reason not to conform - does not reflect real life conformity -> - = the results may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of conformity (low external validity).

Question 5

1st Strength of types + explanations of conformity?

Answer 5

Research support for NSI from Asch -> Asch interviewed his p.ps - some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer + were afraid of disapproval - when p.ps wrote their answers down = conformity reduced from 36.8% to 12.5% -> the results suggest that conformity is somewhat due to a desire not to be rejected by the group + individuals conform publicly even when they don’t agree privately = NSI has a degree of validity.

Question 6

2nd Strength of types + explanations of conformity?

Answer 6

Research support for ISI -> Lucas et al - found that p.ps conformed more often to correct answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult - the situation the p.ps were in was ambiguous + p.ps didn’t want to be wrong - relied on the answers they were given -> + = shows individuals are more likely to conform on a public + private level in ambiguous situations = ISI has a degree of validity.

Question 7

1st Limitation of types + explanations of conformity?

Answer 7

NSI does not predict conformity in every case -> some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others = ‘nAffiliators’ - people who have a strong need for ‘affiliation’ - McGhee + Teevan found that students who were ‘nAffiliators’ were more likely to conform -> - = shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others - individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained = limits the validity of NSI as an explanation for all conformity.

Question 8

2nd Limitation of types + explanations of conformity?

Answer 8

It is unclear whether ISI or NSI is the reason for conformity (in studies + irl) -> Asch found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting p.p - unclear whether the dissenter is reducing the power of NSI or ISI -> - = it is hard to separate ISI + NSI as both processes may operate together in most real world conformity situations = limits the validity of ISI + NSI as types of conformity irl.

Question 9

1st Strength of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 9

High control -> lab setting - emotionally stable individuals were chosen + randomly assigned to the roles - controlled individual personality differences -> + = confident that the findings about conformity aren’t being affected by confounding variables = high internal validity.

Question 10

2nd Strength of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 10

Can be used to explain real life situations -> Abu Ghraib (a military prison in Iraq - notorious for torture + abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers 2003+2004) -> Zimbardo believed that the abusive guards were victims of situation factors that made abuse more likely - lack of training, boredom + no accountability - can be applied to Abu Ghraib -> + = research demonstrates the research is still relevant to real life situations years after original study.

Question 11

1st Limitation of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 11

Low ecological validity -> simulated prison - does not entirely reflect real life - maximum anticipated prison sentence (2 weeks) + p.ps could ask to leave if they wished - Banuazizi et al argued that p.ps were merely play acting rather than confirming to a role -> - = may be difficult to generalise the findings about social roles to real life (low external validity).

Question 12

2nd Limitation of Zimbardo’s study?

Answer 12

Low population validity -> American male students + not representative of all people -> - = results on conformity may be difficult to generalise to other people - females, non-Americans, non-students (low external validity).

Question 13

1st Strength of Milgram’s study?

Answer 13

High control -> uses the experimental method = has high control over extraneous variables - can establish cause + effect - the researcher can be confident that it is the IV (the presence of the researcher + the verbal prods) impacting the DV (the number of p.ps that administered shocks to 450V) -> + = can be confident that the results on obedience aren’t being affected by confounding variables - high internal validity.

Question 14

2nd Strength of Milgram’s study?

Answer 14

Research support -> Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s - p.ps gave real rocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter - 54% of the male participants + 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock -> + = suggests that the effects of Milgram’s study were genuine because people behaved obediently when the shocks were real - suggests Milgram has a degree of validity.

Question 15

1st Limitation of Milgram’s study?

Answer 15

Low ecological validity -> experiment was conducted in an unfamiliar controlled environment + the task of administering shocks was artificial - not a normal everyday task -> - = the results may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of obedience (low external validity).

Question 16

2nd Limitation of Milgram’s study?

Answer 16

Low population validity -> p.ps were all American males + were not representative of all people - Americans/males may be more/less obedient compared to others -> - = the results abt obedience may not necessarily be generalisable to the behaviours of females, non-Americans + non-students (low external validity).

Question 17

1st Strength of Milgram’s situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 17

Research support -> Bickman (1974) - field experiment in NYC where 3 confeds dressed in different outfits - a jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit + a security guard’s uniform - the confeds stood on a street + asked passers-by to perform tasks, e.g picking up litter - people were 2x as likely to obey the confed dressed as a security guard than the one in a jacket and tie -> + = supports the claim that uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience - suggests the theory has a degree of validity.

Question 18

2nd Strength of Milgram’s situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 18

High control -> uses the experimental method - high control over extraneous variables + can establish cause and effect - researcher can be confident that it is the IV (experimenter wearing uniform/no uniform) impacting the DV (the number of p.ps that administer shocks up to 450V) -> + = we can be confident that results abt uniform affecting obedience aren’t being affected by confounding variables - high internal validity.

Question 19

1st Limitation of Milgram’s situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 19

Low population validity - American male students = low external validity.

Question 20

2nd Limitation of Milgram’s situational variables affecting obedience?

Answer 20

Ignores dispositional factor + may not be a complete explanation of obedience -> Mandel (1998) argues that it offers an excuse/‘alibi’ for evil behaviour - offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders - Middendorp et al (1990) found that p.ps with lower levels of education tend to be more obedient than those with higher levels (dispositional factor) -> - = suggests that the validity of Milgram’s situational variables of obedience may be limited + other factors that are not situational may play a role in situations of obedience.

Question 21

1st Strength of the agentic state?

Answer 21

Research support -> most of Milgram’s p.ps resisted giving shocks at some point + often asked the experimenter questions abt the procedure - ‘Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (learner) is harmed’ - experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’ = the p.ps often went through the procedure without further objections -> + = shows that once p.ps perfumes they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour = acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent = suggesting the agentic state has a degree of validity.

Question 22

2nd Strength of the agentic state?

Answer 22

Further research support -> Hofling - 22 nurses were asked to administer a double dose of a drug they had never heard of to a patient - the order was made down the phone by a doctor they’d never met - 21 out of 22 nurses went to administer the drug even though this was against the rules (without a doctor’s signature) -> + = suggests that they were in the agentic state where they do not believe themselves to be responsible - acted as an agent for the doctor -> provides evidence to suggest that the agentic state has a degree of validity.

Question 23

1st Limitation of the agentic state?

Answer 23

Contradictory evidence -> Rank et al - found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient - the doctor was an obvious authority figure but almost all the nurses remained autonomous -> - = suggests that the agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience + limits the validity of the theory as an explanation of obedience in all situations.

Question 24

2nd Limitation of the agentic state?

Answer 24

Fails to explain the gradual + irreversible transition that Lifton (1986) found in his study of German doctors working i Auschwitz -> Lifton found that these doctors had changed gradually + irreversibly from ordinary medical professionals into men + women capable of carrying out vile + lethal experiments on the prisoners -> - = suggests that the transition may be more gradual than Milgram suggests, limiting the validity of the explanation.

Question 25

1st Strength of the legitimacy of authority?

Answer 25

Research support -> Milgram’s original study - AF wore lab coat + 65% of p.La went up to 450V - in variation the person giving orders wore ordinary clothes + obedience dropped to 20% -> + = suggests that when a person doesn’t have legitimate authority obedience decreases because individuals believe the figure doesn’t have the credentials to tell them what to do - suggests the LOA has a degree of validity as an explanation of obedience.

Question 26

2nd Strength of the legitimacy of authority?

Answer 26

Is a useful explanation of cultural differences -> Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of female Australian p.ps went all the way up to 450v in a Milgram style study - Mantell (1971) found that 85% of German p.ps went up to 450V -> + = suggests that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate + entitled to demand obedience - reflects the ways that different societies of socially structured + how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

Question 27

1st Limitation of the legitimacy of authority?

Answer 27

Cant explain all of obedience -> Rank et al (1977) -> - = suggests that some people may be more (or less) obedient than others + it is possible that these tendencies to obey/disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the LOA of an AF - limits the validity of LOA as an explanation of obedience.

Question 28

2nd Limitation of the legitimacy of authority?

Answer 28

Low ecological validity -> conducted in an unfamiliar controlled environment + the task was artificial - it involved giving strangers electric shocks (not a normal everyday task) -> - = the results may be difficult to generalise to real life situations of obedience (low external validity).

Question 29

1st Strength of authoritarian personality?

Answer 29

Research support -> Elms & Milgram interviewed a small sample of people who participated in the original obedience studies + had been obedient - all completed the F-Scale as a part of the study - the 20 obedient p.ps scored significantly higher on the F-Scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient p.ps -> + = the findings support Adorno et al’s view that obedient people may well show similar characteristics to people who have an AP - strengthening the validity of the AP as an explanation of obedience.

Question 30

2nd Strength of authoritarian personality?

Answer 30

Elms & Milgram’s -> High control = high internal validity.

Question 31

1st Limitation of authoritarian personality?

Answer 31

It is an over simplistic explanation for obedience -> only considers an individual’s personality + ignores alternative explanations - Milgram’s situational explanations - Milgram would claim that if an AF is wearing a uniform + is in close proximity = individuals will be more likely to obey -> - = it may be that these situational variables have a greater influence on obedience levels + AP cannot explain all of obedience - limits the validity.

Question 32

2nd Limitation of authoritarian personality?

Answer 32

It may be level of education instead that determines authoritarianism -> Middendorp et al (1990) found that less educated people are consistently more authoritarian than the well-educated + Milgram found that p.ps with lower levels of education tended to be more obedient -> - = it may be that education has a greater influence on obedience levels + AP may not be entirely valid.

Question 33

1st Strength of social support?

Answer 33

Supported by real-world research -> Susan Albrecht et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA - 8 week programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke - social support was provided by a slightly older mentor - by the end = adolescents that had social support were less likely to smoke compared to control group of p.p who didn’t have a mentor -> + = it shows that social support makes it easier to resist social influence in the real world - suggests social support has a degree of validity.

Question 34

2nd Strength of social support?

Answer 34

Research support -> Asch’s variations - found that when he introduced the presence of an ally who gave the correct answer (provided social support for real p.p) = caused conformity levels to drop from 36.8% to 5.5% -> + = research shows that the presence of an ally breaks the unanimity of a majority + makes it easier to not conform - suggests that social support has a degree of validity.

Question 35

1st Strength of locus of control?

Answer 35

Supported by research -> Shute (1975) found that people with an internal LOC were less likely to conform to peer pressure on attitudes towards drugs than people with an external LOC -> + = the research demonstrates that people with a high internal LOC are more likely to resist conformity as the theory suggest - suggests LOC has a degree of validity.

Question 36

2nd Strength of locus of control?

Answer 36

Further supported by research -> Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s baseline study + measured whether p.ps were internals or externals - he found that 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level (showed resistance) - 23% of externals did not continue -> + = the research demonstrates that people who have an internal LOC show greater resistance to authority - suggests the theory of LOC has a degree of validity as an explanation of resistance to social influence.

Question 37

1st Limitation of locus of control?

Answer 37

Over-simplistic theory -> many psychologists believe that Rotter’s measure of LOC is too general + inflexible as the 2 attribution styles can be used interchangeably + at different times - example of a university student working hard = responsible for their grades = internal LOC - some person may show external LOC in their romantic relationships -> - = the theory ignores the complexity of human behaviour + does not take into consideration the influence of situational factors on independent behaviour - limits the validity of the theory.

Question 38

2nd Limitation of locus of control?

Answer 38

Contradictory evidence -> Twenge et al (2004) analysed date from American LOC studies conducted over 40-year period - the data showed that, over time, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external -> - = suggests that if resistance is linked to an internal LOC then the expectation would be for people to have become more internal - limits the validity of the LOC theory as an explanation of resistance to social influence.

Question 39

1st Strength of minority influence?

Answer 39

Research support -> Moscovici et al (1969) demonstrated minority influence in a study - group of 6 people was asked to view a set of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity + then state whether the slides were blue or green - two confeds in each group who consistently said the slides were green - study showed that a consistent monitory opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of the p.ps than an inconsistent condition -> + = research demonstrates that consistency is a factor which is important for when a minority is trying to influence a majority - suggests the theory has a degree of validity.

Question 40

2nd Strength of minority influence?

Answer 40

Can be seen in real life examples -> Rosa Parks, Dec 1st 1955 refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger- arrested + find = her act of defiance drew attention to her view + she began a movement that contributed to the ending of legal racial segregation in America - MBB lasted 381 -> + = it demonstrates that engaging in activities that present some risk by the minority (commitment) does influence minority view + demonstrates consistency - suggests the theory has a degree of validity.

Question 41

1st Limitation of minority influence?

Answer 41

Low ecological validity -> Moscovici’s study - task of identifying the colour of a slide is far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life -> - = cannot necessarily be generalised to real life instances of minority influence - limited external validity.

Question 42

2nd Limitation of minority influence?

Answer 42

The effect of minority influence may not be very powerful -> Moscovici’s research - the figure for agreement with a consistent minority was very low - on average only 8% -> - = suggests that it is a quite rare + not necessarily useful concept for explaining social change.

Question 43

1st Strength of social change through minority influence?

Answer 43

Research support -> Moscovici found that when confeds. consistently gave the wrong answer p.ps confirmed in 8.42% of trials - when the confeds. we’re inconsistent, p.ps conformity to the wrong answer dropped to 1.25% -> + = the research demonstrates that when a minority is consistent the majority are more likely to conform compared to when the minority are inconsistent - suggests it has a degree of validity.

Question 44

2nd Strength of social change through minority influence?

Answer 44

Further research support -> Asch’s variations - he found that when he introduced an ally who gave the correct answer (resisted the majority) it caused conformity levels to drop from 33% to 5.5% -> + = study demonstrates that when an alternative view is put forward conformity to the majority viewpoint decreases + social change is therefore more likely to happen = degree of validity.

Question 45

1st Limitation of social change through minority influence?

Answer 45

Social change through minority influence is very gradual -> the role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities such as the suffragettes rarely bring around social change quickly - there is a strong tendency for humans to conform to the majority position - people are more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change -> + = suggests that the influence of a minority is frequently more latent than direct - it creates the potential for change rather than actual social change.

Question 46

2nd Limitation of social change through minority influence?

Answer 46

Deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change -> some people are supposedly converted because they think more deeply about the minority’s views - Diane Mackie (1987) disagrees + argues that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views - we like to believe that other people share our views + think in the same way - when we find that a majority believes something different = we are forced to think hard abt their arguments + reasoning -> - = suggests that a central element of minority influence has been challenged - limiting the validity of the theory as an explanation of social change.