Social influence evaluations Flashcards
Why people conform
3+,2-
+research evidence support normative SI -Asch’s study where 75% conformed at least once
+research evidence support informational SI- Sherif’s autokinetic effect
+both lab studies, high control of extraneous variables
-other explanations eg. social identity theory, if pressured by people from our in group we are more likely to conform
-lab studies lack ecological validity, mundane realism
Stanford prison experiment
2+,2-
+high internal validity, prisoners and guards believed they were those roles. 90% of convos were about prison life
+lab study, extraneous variables controlled
-lacks population validity, 24 white male college students
-researcher bias, Zimbardo was prison superintendent, may have influenced guards to act a certain way
Milgram
+highly scientific methodology, so easy to replicate and test for reliability
+high internal validity, pps given 45V shock so believed machine worked
-demand characteristics, pps may have worked out aim of experiment
-lacks ecological validity + mundane realism as not a realistic situation
-ethical issues, deception, protection from harm
Agentic state
2-,2+
+supported by milgram research, in his original study, pps showed moral strain by 3 having seizures. Those who disobeyed didn’t show moral strain. Shows people will disobey when in agentic state
+real life applications eg. nazi war criminals were defended in courts for just following orders, didn’t feel responsible. Makes people aware of dangers of ignoring feelings of moral strain
-theory describes rather than explains obedience. Doesn’t state how agentic shift happens, so difficult to research and test the theory
-Other explanations eg. human cruelty. eg. SPE results support because guards inflicted pain on prisoners when there wasn’t an authority figure. Could just be human nature
Legitimacy of authority
2+,2-
+Research evidence eg. Tarnow, found excessive dependence on plane captain, second officer thought he was being risky but assumed he knew what he was doing.
+Explain real life obedience. eg. Kelman + Hamilton suggest My Lai Massacre during Vietnam war, is explained by hierarchy of US army. Soldiers assume orders given are legal
-other explanations eg. gradual commitment, once people obey to a harmless request, they find it more difficult to refuse escalating requests
-Legitimate authority may be used to justify harming others. When people are asked by an authority figure to carry out immoral actions, they feel their moral values aren’t relevant
Authoritarian personality
1+,3-
+supportive research eg. Dambrun + Vatine. Showed correlation between RWA score + max. voltage shock administered. Higher RWA= more obedient
-Social context more important than disposition. Milgram thinks social context explains obedience better than disposition
-Education may determine authoritarianism and obedience. Less educated= more obedient. Suggests lack of education causes obedience and authoritarianism
-not all pps showed featues of authoritarian perosnality. eg. Milgram and Elm found not all obedient pps had difficult relationships with their father.
Locus of control
2+,2-
+Supportive research by Atgis who did a meta analysis of studies which considered locus of control and conformity. Found people with external locus of control were more easily persuaded and more likely to conform
-Atgis supportive research used correlational method to analyse results, therefore cause and effect can’t be stated only a relationship
+Research evidence Oliner + Oliner. Interviewed 2 groups of non-jews who lived through holocaust, one group had recued jews and other hadn’t. Found rescuers had a higher internal locus of control, suggesting is a factor which helps people resist pressure to obey
-Oliner + Oliner supportive research lacked control, no control of extraneous variables, difficult to establish cause and effect between locus of control and independent behaviour because there may be other factors
Social support
1+,1-
+research evidence eg. Allen + Levine conducted a similar experiment to Asch. Found if a dissenter was wearing thick glasses and said they couldn’t see well, conformity dropped as the pps didn’t feel pressure to go with the group
-Asch found social support must be given early on in the process. This suggests social support alone is a sufficient explanation, it depends on when it is given and if it is consistent
Minority influence
2+,2-
+Moscovici used lab study, high control, state cause and effect
+Practical application, minority influence can bring about social change eg. suffragettes. Evidence of psychology at work in everyday life
-lab experiment lacks ecological validity
-Contradicting theories eg. Turner suggests people move towards people in the in group and move away from out-groups. Therefore we have to feel as if we share membership with the minority so they can make an impact
Social influence processes in social change
2+,2-
+Supportive research eg. Nolan hung messages on doors for every week for a month. Group one received note saying most people are reducing energy usage, control group received message just asking them to save energy. Significant decrease in energy use by first group
+many everyday examples eg. suffragettes, gay rights. Shows psychology at work in everyday life
-supportive evidence eg. Milgram, Asch and Moscovici all lack ecological validity
-contradicting evidence eg. Bashir found people know social change is necessary but don’t want to be associated with minority. Suggests people want to be liked by their in-groups and is stronger than their desire to support a minority
