Social Influence Evaluation Flashcards
Evaluation for explanations for conformity
Support for NSI- In Asch’s experiment the participants went along with an answer they could clearly see was wrong as they were afraid of disapproval from the other pts
Limitation for NSI- individual differences means that some people will have a greater or lesser need to be liked by others and subsequently would be more or less affected by NSI
Support for ISI- Lucas et al asked pts to answer easy or difficult maths questions and there was greater conformity to incorrect answers when the questions were difficult and students thought their maths ability was poor
Asch study evaluation
Limitation- temporal validity Perrin and Spencer repeated Aschs study in the 1980’s and out of 396 trials found only one conforming response therefore cultural change has taken place and conformity is no longer as important
Limitation- sample Asch only used male students and research suggests that women and other cultures may be more conformist than men so the findings cannot be generalised
Limitation- methodological issues pts were aware they were in a study so the findings could be due to demand characteristics especially since the study lacks mundane realism and there is no real reason to conform
Milgram study evaluation
Limitation- demand characteristics Orne and Holland said the pts guessed the shocks weren’t real following that Milgrams research assistant grouped the pts into believers and doubters and found that believers were more likely to disobey and give low intensity shocks
Limitation- sample only American males were used so there is gender bias and findings cannot be generalised
Strength- support from Burger who replicate the study years later and found levels of obedience almost identical to those of Milgram ( could also be temporal validity )
Zimbardo study evaluation
Strength- support from real life events such as the Abu Ghraib prison in which US soldiers abused and tortured Iraqi prisoners due to situational factors and conforming to their social roles
Limitation- reliability Reicher and Haslam replicated the study and found that the prisoners were the ones to take control of the prison so findings are not consistent
Limitation- ethical issues in the procedure such as breaking the right to withdraw and protection from harm
Milgram situational variables evaluation
Limitation- ignores internal factors such as the disposition of the pts personality e.g. the authoritarian personality where people are more likely to blindly obey authority figures ( Elms and Milgram even found that pts with that personality were likely to administer bigger shocks)
Limitation- the explanation offers an excuse for evil behaviour e.g. behaviour of nazis
Agentic state and legitimacy of authority evaluation
Agentic state support- in one of Milgrams variables the researcher was in a different room when giving instructions and obedience fell from 65% to 20.5% as the pts saw themselves as responsible
Legitimacy of authority support- pts in Milgrams study were more likely to obey a researcher when research took place in a prestigious setting compared to a run down office 65% to 47.5%
Authoritarian personality evaluation
Strength- in a study by Elms and Milgram 20 obedient pts scored higher on the f-scale and also reported viewing the researcher as more admirable than the learner
Limitation- it cannot explain group obedience e.g. it is very unlikely that everyone in nazi germany who committed evil acts was influenced by the authority of certain figures
Limitation- methodology scales are subject to social desirability so the pt may not want to tell the truth in order to please the researcher
Resistance to social influence evaluation (locus of control and social support)
Locus of control
Limitation- investigating the link between locus of control and resistance to social influence relies on correlational evidence and so cause and effect cannot be established
Strength- Crowne et al replicated Aschs experiment and found that internals conformed less than externals
Social support
Strength- Asch found that when there was a dissenter in the line judgement task conformity dropped from 33% to 5%
Strength- Milgram found that when there was a team of 3 teachers and two refused to administer the shocks the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%
Minority influence evaluation (consistency commitment flexibility)
Consistency- Moscovici carried out research in which pts were asked to say whether blue coloured slides were blue or green and two of the six pts were confederates. In the consistent condition he found that pts called the slides green in 8.42% of the trials and 32% of these pts called a slide green at least once. In the inconsistent condition pts called the slides green in only 1.25% of the trials.
Commitment- Xie found that when pts talked on a social network about their p.o.v and committed they had the most influence on people with an alternative p.o.v
Flexibility- Nemeth and Brilmayer held a mock jury to discuss how much compensation should be paid after a ski lift accident and found that when the confederate was flexible in their p.o.v they had a bigger influence
Social change evaluation
Strength- Nolan hung messages on front doors stating that most residents were trying to reduce energy usage and as a control some residents had messages stating to just save energy. He found a significant decrease in energy usage of the first group.
Limitation- the influence of minorities is limited as they are perceived as socially deviant and others may want to avoid being labelled the same
