social influence people

Question 1

Herbert Kelman (1958)

Answer 1

Types of conformity

origin

Question 2

Deutsch and Gerard (1955)

Answer 2

Explanations for conformity
origin
two process theory

Question 3

Lucas et al (2006)

Answer 3

Research support for ISI

└greater conformity to more difficult maths problems- especially from people bad at maths

Question 4

Asch (1955)

Answer 4

Individual differences in ISI

└students (28%) less conformist than other participants (37%)

Question 5

Spencer (1980)

Answer 5

little conformity with science students

Question 6

Asch (1951)

Answer 6

Research support for NSI
└participants conformed as self-conscious
└when wrote down- conformity dropped to 12.5 %

Question 7

McGhee and Teevan (1967)

Answer 7

students needing affiliation conformed more

Question 8

Asch (1951,1955)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Perrin and Spencer (1980)

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Neto (1995)

Answer 10

Limitation of Aschs study

woman more conformist as more concerned about social relationships

Question 11

Bond and Smith 1996

Answer 11

Limitation of Aschs study
united states
└individualist culture- in collectivist cultures (e.g. china) higher conformity rates

Question 12

Haney et al 1973/ zimbardo

Answer 12

└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’

Question 13

Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975)

Answer 13

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

Question 14

└Fromm (1973)

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

Zimbardo (2007)

Answer 15

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.)

Question 16

Milgram (1963)

Answer 16

└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

Question 17

Hofling et al (1966)

Answer 17

Obedience: Milgrams research
Strengths

21/22 nurses obey doctors unjustified demands

Question 18

sheridan and king (1972)-

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Orne and Holland (1968)-

Answer 19

Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations

participants guessed it wasn’t real shocks

Question 20

Gina perry (2013)

Answer 20

Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations

listened to tapes of Milgrams participants doubting shocks

Question 21

Baumrind (1964)-

Answer 21

Obedience: Milgrams research
Limitations

critical of deception
└rigged role allocation
└thought shocks were real

Question 22

Brickman (1974)

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Miranda et al (1981)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

smith and bond (1998)

Answer 24

Obedience: situational variables

most replications in western developed countries (spain, Australia)
└culturally not different from USA

Question 25

Mandel (1998)

Answer 25

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