Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AS AQA Psychology > Social Influence Studies > Flashcards

Social Influence Studies Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Asch aim

A

To investigate whether people will conform to majority influence in an unambiguous situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Asch setting

A

Lab

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Asch sample

A

123 American male students

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Asch task

A

Match line a, b, or c with line x. Naive participant always answered last/ penultimately in a group of 7 confederates who gave wrong answers in the 12 critical trials out of 18

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Asch findings

A
  • 25% did not conform at all
  • 75% conformed at least once
  • 36.8% of the time a wrong answer was given
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Asch reasons for conformity

A

Distortion of action (and distortion of perception and distortion of judgement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Asch conclusion

A

Even when a situation is unambiguous, people will still conform to a majority, which demonstrates the power of NSI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Asch type of procedure

A

Standardised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Asch evaluation ethical issue

A

Deception( weakness as reduces chance of replication so reduces reliability)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Asch evaluation weakness

A

Only used young American males (ethnocentric and androcentric, decreases population validity)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Asch evaluation strength

A

Lab setting (control extraneous variables increases control, increases internal validity)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Asch’s variations

A

Group size (3 confederates 31.8%), unanimity (25%), task difficulty (more conforming)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Zimbardo aim

A

To investigate whether brutality in American prisons was due to sadistic personalities (a dispositional explanation) or due to social roles (a situational explanation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Zimbardo research method

A

Laboratory experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Zimbardo research design

A

Independent groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Zimbardo independent variable

A

Role of the participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Zimbardo sample

A

21 American male students

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Zimbardo task

A
  • Participants responded to an advert and then went through extensive psychological testing
  • The roles of guard or prisoner were randomly allocated
  • There were 10 guards and 11 prisoners
  • The prisoners were arrested by the real local police, blindfolded, strip-searched, deloused and issued a number and uniform
  • 9 prisoners were placed 3 to a cell and had a regular routine of shifts, meal times, visiting hours and time to visit the parole and disciplinary board, and the prison chaplain
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Zimbardo findings- guards behaviour

A
  • Slow start
  • Then the guards settled quickly into their roles
  • The guards crushed an early rebellion using fire extinguishers
  • Then the guards started to become more and more sadistic
  • The guards taunted the prisoners, gave them meaningless tasks to do and conducted frequent head counts (sometimes in the middle of the night)
  • The guards created more opportunities to enforce the rules and punish the prisoners
  • The experiment was meant to last 2 weeks but had to stop after 6 days
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Zimbardo findings- prisoners behaviour

A
  • There was an early rebellion; the prisoners ripped their uniforms, shouted and swore at the guards
  • The prisoners then became subdued and depressed
  • One prisoner was released on the first day and two more on the fourth day because they showed signs of psychological disturbance
  • One prisoner went on hunger strike; the guards tried to feed him and punished him by putting him in a small, dark closet. He was looked down upon by the other prisoners
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Zimbardo- reason it stopped early

A

In total 5 prisoners had to be released before the study finished due to psychological and physical harm- 3 had fits of fury and crying, 1 developed a rash due to not being allowed on parole

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Zimbardo conclusion

A

People will readily conform to the social roles that they are expected to play, especially if those roles are strongly stereotyped (e.g. prison guards). The prison environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behaviour (none of the participants who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study). Therefore, the roles that people play can shape their behaviour and attitudes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Zimbardo strength research design

A

There are no order effects, so the experiment has high internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Zimbardo strength research method

A

The conditions were highly controlled, making it feel more real to the prisoners (prisons are also highly controlled), so increasing external validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Zimbardo evaluation ethical issue

A

Protection from harm- were put under more risk than they would in their everyday lives, reducing reliability as it is less likely to be replicated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Problem with Zimbardo’s role

A

He had a dual role as the prison warden and the overseer of the experiment, meaning that when participants came to him and asked to be let out (which was a right of theirs) his judgement was biased

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Who recreated Zimbardo’s study and what happened?

A

Haslam and Reicher and the prisoners overthrew the guards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

All ethical issues with Zimbardo

A
  • Lack of fully informed consent
  • No privacy
  • No protection from harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Zimbardo evaluation strength

A

Lab experiment- high control, no extraneous variables means high internal validity
Randomly assigned roles- increases likeliness that IV is affecting the DV, reduces researcher bias, means higher internal validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Zimbardo evaluation weakness

A

All American, male students- ethnocentric and androcentric, age bias, means lower population validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Zimbardo robin study

A

Orlando

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Orlando aim

A

How conformity to social roles can influence people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Orlando procedure

A

Selected staff to act as patients for a few weeks in a psychiatric ward in a hospital

34
Q

Orlando findings

A

Participants gained psychological issues e.g. anxiety, depression, withdrawn

35
Q

Orlando conclusion

A

The participants conformed to social roles very quickly

36
Q

Orlando evaluation strength

A

Internal validity, ecological validity, practical application

37
Q

Orlando evaluation weakness

A

Ethical issues

38
Q

Asch robin study

A

Jenness

39
Q

Jenness aim

A

Study conformity in an ambiguous situation

40
Q

Jenness procedure

A

Asked participants to individually estimate the number of beans in a jar, then asked for a group estimate, then asked for individual estimates again

41
Q

Jenness findings

A

Almost all participants changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate

42
Q

Jenness conclusion

A

People will conform in an ambiguous situation

43
Q

Milgram aim

A

To investigate the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis and to see if people will obey to and authority figure even if the consequences are harmful

44
Q

Milgram method

A

Lab setting, but not strictly an experiment as there is no IV or DV- a controlled lab observation

45
Q

Milgram sample

A

40 American males between the ages of 20 and 50 years old

46
Q

Milgram task

A
  • Participants told they would be randomly allocated to teacher or learner (not true, they always got teacher)
  • A confederate, Mr Wallace played the part of the learner
  • The participants were told the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning
  • The learner was strapped into a chair in an adjoining room and wired with electrodes
  • Participants read out a series of word association tasks, and they were answered with a series of verbal answers that had been recorded (the teacher thought this was the learner speaking)
  • With each wrong answer an electric shock was given
  • If the teacher seemed reluctant to continue they were prompted by the experimenter using one of four prods: ‘Please continue’, ‘Please go on’, ‘The experiment requires that you continue’, ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’
  • If the participant questioned the procedure they were told the shocks would have no lasting tissue damage
47
Q

Milgram shock information

A
  • The shocks were demonstrated to the teacher but after this they were not real, which the teachers did not know
  • The electric shocks started at 15 volts, labelled ‘slight shock’, each switch gave a shock 15 volts higher than the previous
  • The highest shock level was 450 volts, which was labelled ‘XXX’
  • At 150 volts the learner began to protest and demand to be released
  • At 300 volts he refused to answer any more questions and said he had heart problems that were bothering him
  • At 315 volts he screamed loudly
  • At 330 volts he made no more noise
48
Q

Milgram findings

A
  • 12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts

- 65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts

49
Q

Milgram observation findings

A
  • Participants were extremely tense
  • Many of them were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their nails into their hands
  • Three participants had full uncontrollable seizures
50
Q

Milgram conclusion

A

Ordinary people will obey an authority figure even if the consequences are harmful. However, people often show distress when doing so

51
Q

Milgram ethical issues

A
  • Deception
  • Lack of informed consent
  • Psychological and physical harm
  • Pressure to continue
52
Q

Milgram evaluation strength

A

Lab so increased control, fewer extraneous variables, increased internal validity

53
Q

Milgram evaluation weakness

A

Unrealistic task/ demand characteristics, decreased external validity

54
Q

Hofling

A
  • Nurses received a call from an unknown doctor
  • Nurses were alone on a night shift
  • They were asked to administer Astroten, a drug unknown to the nurses (it was a placebo)
  • 21 out of 22 nurses started to prepare the medication until another nurse (who had been waiting out of sight) stopped them
55
Q

Hofling conclusion

A

High levels of obedience can be obtained in real-life settings

56
Q

Milgram robin study

A

Hofling

57
Q

Hofling evaluation strength

A

Realistic task increases ecological validity

58
Q

Hofling evaluation weakness

A

Not in a lab decreases internal validity

59
Q

Hofling ethical issues

A
  • Deception
  • Lack of informed consent
  • Right to withdraw
60
Q

Milgram 3 variations

A

Proximity, location, uniform

61
Q

Milgram proximity real life scenario and task

A
  • To victim: following orders to shoot someone/ trigger an explosion; teacher and learner in same room
  • To authority figure: your parents order you to tidy your room, your mum tells you directly/ your dad sends a text; experimenter instructed teacher over phone
62
Q

Milgram proximity findings

A
  • Victim: obedience fell to 40% when the teacher could see the learner
  • Authority figure: obedience fell to 25% when instructed over the phone
63
Q

Milgram proximity evaluation

A
  • Victim: the teacher may not have believed the learner’s acting leading to demand characteristics
  • Authority figure: in Nazi Germany orders were delivered by phone/ post but it was also a way of living, which the study does not replicate decreasing ecological validity
64
Q

Milgram location real life scenario and task

A

People obey the ‘please turn off the taps’ signs in posh restaurants/ don’t obey them in McDonalds; venue moved to a run down building

65
Q

Milgram location findings

A

Obedience fell to 47.5% when moved to a less prestigious surrounding

66
Q

Milgram location evaluation

A

The lab may have made it feel more like an experiment leading to demand characteristics so decreasing internal validity

67
Q

Milgram uniform real life scenario and task

A

In a supermarket people are more likely to obey a security guard/ less likely to obey a shelf-stacker; experimenter wore a lab coat or everyday clothes

68
Q

Milgram uniform findings

A

Obedience fell to 20% when the experimenter was replaced by someone in everyday clothes

69
Q

Milgram uniform evalution

A

Bickman varied uniform and found more prestigious uniform led to higher levels of obedience which increases the reliability of Milgram’s findings

70
Q

Blass and Schmitt

A

People who saw Milgram’s research (students) blamed the experimenter, indicating that they believed the participants were agents of authority

71
Q

Holland

A

Repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measure whether participants were internals or externals.
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock
23% of externals did not continue to the highest shock

72
Q

Twenge

A

Analysed data from American obedience trials from 196p to 2002
Data showed that people became more resistant to authority figures but also more external

73
Q

Spector

A

Gave the LOC scale to 157 uni students
He found that participants with a high external locus of control did conform more than those with a low external of control

74
Q

Shute

A

Exposed undergrads to peers who expressed conservative or liberal attitudes towards drug taking
He found that undergrads with an internal LOC conformed less to expressing pro-drug attitudes

75
Q

Moscovici aim

A

To study the effect of a minority influence when consistent

76
Q

Moscovici procedure

A

6 participants and 2 confederates
36 blue-coloured slides that varied in intensity
Asked participants whether slides were blue or green
Confederates always said green (2/3s of trials)

77
Q

Moscovici findings

A

32% of participants gave the same answer as the minority on at least one trial when consistent
When inconsistent agreement fell to 1.25%
When there were no confederates the participants were wrong 0.25% of the time

78
Q

Moscovici conclusion

A

When consistent, a minority influence can cause the majority to conform

79
Q

Adorno aim

A

Investigate the cause of the obedient personality

80
Q

Adorno procedure

A

Over 2000 middle-class white Americans
Unconscious racial attitudes
Used several scales including F-scale

81
Q

Social support research

A

When one confederate didn’t conform in Asch conformity fell from 32% to 5.5%
When two confederates paired with the participant and left early in Milgram only 10% of participants gave the maximum shock

AS AQA Psychology (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions