Social influence studies and eval

Question 1

Research support for normative social influence

Answer 1

• Asch’s line study provides support for normative social influence because task difficulty was low and the average conformity rate was 33%
• One in 20 of all participants conformed on all of the trials

Question 2

Research support for informational social influence

Answer 2

• The best support for this is from Jenness jelly bean study, where the task difficulty was extremely high. Participants’ estimates conformed to the group estimates after group discussion, even though the group was no longer present (internalisation)
• Asch’s line study also provides support for informational social influence through the variation of his experiment when task difficulty was increased, increasing conformity

Question 3

What did Jenness study?

Answer 3

• Informational social influence
• Measured to what degree participants changed their answers to how many jelly beans were in a jar after a group discussion.

Question 4

Results of Jenness study

Answer 4

• The total number of jelly beans in the jar was 811
• Female participants changed their answer by an average of 382
• Male participants an average of 256

Question 5

Evaluation of Jenness study

Answer 5

• The results may have been explained by normative social influence as participants may have thought their final answer (although given in private) would be shared with the group
• The study doesn’t tell us much about conformity in non-ambiguous situations, the task difficulty was so high and the answer so vague

Question 6

What did Zimbardo aim to find out?

Answer 6

Whether prison brutality occurs as a result of the personalities of guards and prisoners or as a result of their conformity to social roles

Question 7

Zimbardo prison study: study type

Answer 7

Controlled observation under lab conditions

Question 8

Zimbardo prison experiment: results

Answer 8

• Zimbardo found that those assigned the role of guard increasingly treated the prisoners brutally and conformed to their role
• Prisoners initially attempted to rebel however quickly became increasingly passive

Question 8

Zimbardo: Criticisms and (Some of) his responses

Answer 8

1.) Zimbardo’s prison experiment was unethical and one participant had to be removed after a mental breakdown and unstoppable crying - Zimbardo said he didn’t expect this, ppts were screened for mental/physical health, debriefing sessions for several years afterwards
2.) There was a lack of generalisability, participants were almost entirely white undergrads
3.) Zimbardo played the role of guard himself, investigator effects - no response
4.) Lack of ecological validity - ppts however did behave as expected and 90% of prisoners conversations were about life in the prison

Question 9

What did Asch investigate?

Answer 9

Whether participants would conform even when the majority were obviously wrong

Question 10

Asch: results

Answer 10

• 25% never conformed
• 33% overall conformity rate across all trials
• 75% conformed at least once

Question 11

Asch: variations

Answer 11

1.) Group size - overall increase in conformity with a larger majority (only to a point though)
2.) Unanimity - the presence of a single confederate giving a different answer conformity decreased
3.) Task difficulty - conformity increased when the correct answer was made less obvious

Question 12

Asch: evaluation and responses

Answer 12

• Might lack ecological validity as it was a lab study - however Asch said this actually allowed him to establish a cause and effect relationship
• Might have suffered from demand characteristics as participants realised confederates were lying - however post study interviews indicated ppts thought confederates were legitimate participants

Question 13

Milgram: study aim

Answer 13

Whether ordinary participants would obey orders even if they were unjust

Question 14

Milgram experiment: results

Answer 14

• 65% of participants went up to the full 450V
• All participants went up to 330V, after which the “learner” would become unconscious and no more pre-recorded screams would be heard

Question 15

Milgram: additional experiments/variations

Answer 15

• Proximity of authority figure - closer to authority figure (same room vs over phone) - over the phone decreased conformity to 450v to 21%
• Proximity to victim - where the teacher and learner were sat in the same room conformity dropped to 40%, when they had to force their hand onto the shock plate this decreased to 30%
• Location - when carried out in a run down building compared to Yale laboratory confirmity dropped to 47.5%
• Uniform - when the teacher didnt wear a lab coat this reduced to 20% in ordinary clothes

Question 16

Milgram: evaluation

Answer 16

• Strength: He relied on laboratory experiments meaning he could establish a cause and effect relationship
• Weaknesses - Demand characteristics, population validity, ecological validity
• Weakness - unethical, lack of informed consent due to deception, psychological harm, may have thought they “must go on” and couldn’t withdraw

Question 17

What explanations for obedience are supported by agency theory?

Answer 17

Agency theory, legitimacy of authority (variations)

Question 18

What did Moscovici aim to find out?

Answer 18

(Minority influence) - Whether a minority could influence the answers of a majority in an unambiguous task

Question 19

Moscovici: method

Answer 19

• Majority were shown a slide of the colour blue in the presence of a consistent and unconsistent minority who said the slide was green

Question 20

Moscovici: Results

Answer 20

• When the minority were consistent, the majority agreed with them 8.2% of the time, compared to 1.25% with an inconsistent minority, indicating that with consistence minorities could influence the attitudes of the majority

Question 21

Nemeth: variations on Moscovici

Answer 21

• Found that a majority were more likely to agree with a flexible minority than an inflexible minority

Question 22

Moscovici: criticisms

Answer 22

• Lack of population validity as he only used female students as participants
• Lack of ecological validity as this was a lab experiment and involved artificial tasks, very different from minority groups in real life such as Greenpeace who operate in different settings and with more at stake
• May have been unethical as it involved deception that may have led to stress