Social Influence Studies Flashcards
Asch aim
To investigate whether people will conform to majority influence in an unambiguous situation
Asch setting
Lab
Asch sample
123 American male students
Asch task
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
Asch findings
- 25% did not conform at all
- 75% conformed at least once
- 36.8% of the time a wrong answer was given
Asch reasons for conformity
Distortion of action (and distortion of perception and distortion of judgement)
Asch conclusion
Even when a situation is unambiguous, people will still conform to a majority, which demonstrates the power of NSI
Asch type of procedure
Standardised
Asch evaluation ethical issue
Deception( weakness as reduces chance of replication so reduces reliability)
Asch evaluation weakness
Only used young American males (ethnocentric and androcentric, decreases population validity)
Asch evaluation strength
Lab setting (control extraneous variables increases control, increases internal validity)
Asch’s variations
Group size (3 confederates 31.8%), unanimity (25%), task difficulty (more conforming)
Zimbardo aim
To investigate whether brutality in American prisons was due to sadistic personalities (a dispositional explanation) or due to social roles (a situational explanation)
Zimbardo research method
Laboratory experiment
Zimbardo research design
Independent groups
Zimbardo independent variable
Role of the participants
Zimbardo sample
21 American male students
Zimbardo task
- 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
Zimbardo findings- guards behaviour
- 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
Zimbardo findings- prisoners behaviour
- 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
Zimbardo- reason it stopped early
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
Zimbardo conclusion
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
Zimbardo strength research design
There are no order effects, so the experiment has high internal validity
Zimbardo strength research method
The conditions were highly controlled, making it feel more real to the prisoners (prisons are also highly controlled), so increasing external validity
Zimbardo evaluation ethical issue
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
Problem with Zimbardo’s role
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
Who recreated Zimbardo’s study and what happened?
Haslam and Reicher and the prisoners overthrew the guards
All ethical issues with Zimbardo
- Lack of fully informed consent
- No privacy
- No protection from harm
Zimbardo evaluation strength
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
Zimbardo evaluation weakness
All American, male students- ethnocentric and androcentric, age bias, means lower population validity
Zimbardo robin study
Orlando
Orlando aim
How conformity to social roles can influence people
Orlando procedure
Selected staff to act as patients for a few weeks in a psychiatric ward in a hospital
Orlando findings
Participants gained psychological issues e.g. anxiety, depression, withdrawn
Orlando conclusion
The participants conformed to social roles very quickly
Orlando evaluation strength
Internal validity, ecological validity, practical application
Orlando evaluation weakness
Ethical issues
Asch robin study
Jenness
Jenness aim
Study conformity in an ambiguous situation
Jenness procedure
Asked participants to individually estimate the number of beans in a jar, then asked for a group estimate, then asked for individual estimates again
Jenness findings
Almost all participants changed their individual guesses to be closer to the group estimate
Jenness conclusion
People will conform in an ambiguous situation
Milgram aim
To investigate the ‘Germans are different’ hypothesis and to see if people will obey to and authority figure even if the consequences are harmful
Milgram method
Lab setting, but not strictly an experiment as there is no IV or DV- a controlled lab observation
Milgram sample
40 American males between the ages of 20 and 50 years old
Milgram task
- 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
Milgram shock information
- 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
Milgram findings
- 12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts
- 65% of participants continued to the highest level of 450 volts
Milgram observation findings
- 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
Milgram conclusion
Ordinary people will obey an authority figure even if the consequences are harmful. However, people often show distress when doing so
Milgram ethical issues
- Deception
- Lack of informed consent
- Psychological and physical harm
- Pressure to continue
Milgram evaluation strength
Lab so increased control, fewer extraneous variables, increased internal validity
Milgram evaluation weakness
Unrealistic task/ demand characteristics, decreased external validity
Hofling
- 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
Hofling conclusion
High levels of obedience can be obtained in real-life settings
Milgram robin study
Hofling
Hofling evaluation strength
Realistic task increases ecological validity
Hofling evaluation weakness
Not in a lab decreases internal validity
Hofling ethical issues
- Deception
- Lack of informed consent
- Right to withdraw
Milgram 3 variations
Proximity, location, uniform
Milgram proximity real life scenario and task
- 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
Milgram proximity findings
- Victim: obedience fell to 40% when the teacher could see the learner
- Authority figure: obedience fell to 25% when instructed over the phone
Milgram proximity evaluation
- 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
Milgram location real life scenario and task
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
Milgram location findings
Obedience fell to 47.5% when moved to a less prestigious surrounding
Milgram location evaluation
The lab may have made it feel more like an experiment leading to demand characteristics so decreasing internal validity
Milgram uniform real life scenario and task
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
Milgram uniform findings
Obedience fell to 20% when the experimenter was replaced by someone in everyday clothes
Milgram uniform evalution
Bickman varied uniform and found more prestigious uniform led to higher levels of obedience which increases the reliability of Milgram’s findings
Blass and Schmitt
People who saw Milgram’s research (students) blamed the experimenter, indicating that they believed the participants were agents of authority
Holland
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
Twenge
Analysed data from American obedience trials from 196p to 2002
Data showed that people became more resistant to authority figures but also more external
Spector
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
Shute
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
Moscovici aim
To study the effect of a minority influence when consistent
Moscovici procedure
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)
Moscovici findings
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
Moscovici conclusion
When consistent, a minority influence can cause the majority to conform
Adorno aim
Investigate the cause of the obedient personality
Adorno procedure
Over 2000 middle-class white Americans
Unconscious racial attitudes
Used several scales including F-scale
Social support research
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
