social influence evaluations

Question 1

conforminty

Answer 1

-lucas et al (isl)
-Asch task difficulty=conforminty roses (isl)
-NSI affects ppl in different way=N.affiliators=care more about what others think about them=more likeley to conform
-individualistic cultures may conform less. e.g. study in china found ppl conform more
ISL also affects other differently=perin and spencher

Question 2

Zimbardo

Answer 2

-highly controlled standardised conditions used-random allocation = emotionally stable=increased internal validity
-,mya hav been acting and didnt rlly conform= cool hand luke=However qualitative evidence found 90% of convo was about prison life
-eggerated the results on;ly a third of apeople actually conformed. other wanted to enforce the rule fairly and even offer them hings like cigarettes. may be due to personality
-ethical issues=zimbardo dual roles
-participant harm

Question 3

milgram

Answer 3

-orne and Holand=play acting. Tape were analysed shoing participants showed great concern over shocked
Howevevr study repeated on puppies and real shocks usd found all females conformed and fifty four of males so results similar
-lab stydy =represents yhe authority between experimenter and paticipants which is what occur real-life situation
-Hoofling et al
-ethicial isuues= deceived and psychological harm

Question 4

milgrams variation

Answer 4

• highly controlled, manipulated one variable at a time= lots of replication
  -orne and Holland even more so
  -Bickman =milkman = foutneen
  suit= nineteen
  security=thirty eight
  -field study so= high external validity
  -alibi excuse

Question 5

legitamacy of authority

Answer 5

-blass an schmitt
-explains cultural differneces = sixteen in Australia and 85% in Germany
-cross cultural research=increases validity

Question 6

Agentic shift

Answer 6

limited explanation
why ppl did not obey + Hoofling et al didnt display sam anxiety as milgrams so only applys to some siuations
- Both agentic shift and legitamacy of authority=can eplain real-life crimes e,eg, mai lai massacare
- but can provide the alibi excuse

Question 7

Authoritarian personality

Answer 7

-metholodgy issues iwith f-scale
-politically bias=left wing being conservative seen as psychological disorder
-Milgram and Elms interviewed fully obedient participants =high f-score
-corellation does not equal causation= third factor e.g. lower levels of education
-can not explain where majority obeyed e.g. i Germany it is unlikely all authoritarian
-agentic + legitamate= better explanation

Question 8

social support

Answer 8

• Asch unamity= reduced by a quarter
• -milgram study in group twenty 9/thirty three resisted
• Allene and levine

Question 9

loc

Answer 9

-repeat of Milgrams study.
thiry seven% did not resist=internal and twenty three=external
-twenge et al = over fourty years

Question 10

minority influence

Answer 10

-Moccovici thity six different shades of blue. consitent minority said was green conformity =thirty two , insconsient one.two five and control = zero.two five
-All female=problems and artifical task. e.g. polictical campaigns=real-life decision is more importsnt
-moscosvici vartation = had to write down thoughts privatetly=greater conformity so majority more influenced by minority but too afraid to admitt
-meta analysis of alsmost one hundred studies=more consitent minority= more influential

Question 11

social change

Answer 11

-moscovici
-energy conumtion study = aphan et al. (2008) investigated whether social influence processes led to a Fouction in energy consumption in a community. They hung messages on he front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for one month he key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy sage. As a control, some residents had a different message that just asked her to save epergy but made no reference to other people’s behaviour. Nolan et al. found significant decreases in energy usage in the first group his is a strength because it shows that conformity can lead to social change hrough the operation of rormative social influence.

-social changes happen slowly wher they happen at all For example, it has aken decades for attitudes against drink-driving and smoking to shift. Do minorities really have much of an influence? Charlan Nemeth (1986) argues hat the effects of minority influence are likely to be mostly indirect and elayed. They are indirect because the majority is mfluenced on matters only elated to the issue at hand, and not the central issue itself. They ate delayed ecause the effects may not be seen for some time.
This could be considered a limitation of using minority influence to explain acial change because it shows that its effects are fragile and its role in social fliuence very limited