social influence people Flashcards
Herbert Kelman (1958)
Types of conformity
origin
Deutsch and Gerard (1955)
Explanations for conformity
origin
two process theory
Lucas et al (2006)
Research support for ISI
└greater conformity to more difficult maths problems- especially from people bad at maths
Asch (1955)
Individual differences in ISI
└students (28%) less conformist than other participants (37%)
Spencer (1980)
little conformity with science students
Asch (1951)
Research support for NSI
└participants conformed as self-conscious
└when wrote down- conformity dropped to 12.5 %
McGhee and Teevan (1967)
students needing affiliation conformed more
Asch (1951,1955)
comparing line lengths on cards- two obviously wrong
└123 male American undergraduates (volunteers)
└1 naïve participant, 6-8 confederates
└12/18 of critical trials confederates gave same wrong answer
└wrong answer: 36.8%
└conformed once: 75%
└in end interview said conformed to avoid rejection
└normative social influence
Perrin and Spencer (1980)
Limitation of Aschs study
└repeated study with UK engineering students
└1 student conformed in 396 trials
└1950s conformist time in America= conform to social norms
Neto (1995)
Limitation of Aschs study
woman more conformist as more concerned about social relationships
Bond and Smith 1996
Limitation of Aschs study
united states
└individualist culture- in collectivist cultures (e.g. china) higher conformity rates
Haney et al 1973/ zimbardo
└Zimbardo set up mock prison in Stanford University psychology basement (Haney et al 1973)
└students volunteered- emotionally stable participants selected
└randomly assigned: prisoners/guards
└prisoners- arrested, strip serched, deloused, uniform, number, rules
└guards: uniform (handcuffs, keys, shades), power over prisoners
└study stopped at 6/14 days- guards behaviour threat to prisoners psychological and physical health
└rebellion on day 2
└harassed prisoners, punished for small misdemeanours
└releases: 1 on first day, 2 on fourth day
└prisoner on hunger strike in ‘the hole’
Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975)
Zimbardo’s research into Conformity to social roles
Limitations
└participants acting not conforming- stereotypes
└e.g. guard based character on guard from Cool Hand Luke
└Fromm (1973)
Zimbardo’s research into Conformity to social roles
Limitations
└accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviours, and minimising the role of dispositional influences (personality)
Zimbardo (2007)
Zimbardo’s research into Conformity to social roles
Limitations
e.g. a minority of guards behaved brutally a third, the other thirds applied rules fairly or sympathised with and tried to help the prisoners (offered them cigarettes e.g.)
Milgram (1963)
└40 male participants- newspapers- for “memory study” labs study
└20-50 years old
└range of jobs
└$4.50 to take part
└rigged draw:
└Mr Wallace (confederate)= learner
└participant= teacher
└confederate in lab coat= experimenter
└learner given shocks if incorrect on memory test- in other room
└shock level 13 (slight shock)- 450 (danger)
└300V- pound wall, 350V pound wall then no response
Standard prods:
└please go on, you must continue, you have no other choice-you must go on
└no participants stopped below 300V
└5 participants stopped AT 300V
└65% went to 450V
└qualitative data- participants sweat, trembled, groaned (3= seizures)
└findings not expected (expected only 3% to go to 450V)
└ participants debriefed
└84% glad to have participated
Hofling et al (1966)
Obedience: Milgrams research
Strengths
21/22 nurses obey doctors unjustified demands
sheridan and king (1972)-
Obedience: Milgrams research
Strengths
real shocks given to a puppy
└54% male /100% female gave “fatal” shock
└acted same way with real shock= increase validity
Orne and Holland (1968)-
Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations
participants guessed it wasn’t real shocks
Gina perry (2013)
Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations
listened to tapes of Milgrams participants doubting shocks
Baumrind (1964)-
Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations
critical of deception
└rigged role allocation
└thought shocks were real
Brickman (1974)
Obedience: situational variables
Strengths
└ field experiment in NYC
└3 confederates dressed in different outfits
└jacket and tie, milkmans outfit, security guards uniform
└they stood in the street and asked people to perform tasks such as picking up litter
└people twice as likely to obey security guard than jacket and tie
└supports milgrams conclusion that uniform conveys authority and is a situational factor likely to produce obedience
Miranda et al (1981)
Obedience: situational variables
Strengths
└obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students
└suggests milgrams conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males but can be generalised across cultures and to females
smith and bond (1998)
Obedience: situational variables
most replications in western developed countries (spain, Australia)
└culturally not different from USA
Mandel (1998)
Obedience alibi
└criticised this perspective as it offers an excuse/alibi for evil behaviour
└offensive of holocaust survivors to suggest Nazis were simply obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors beyond their control
