social influences

Question 1

Evaluation of Deutsch and Gerard’s two process theory (1)

Answer 1

-lucas et al asked students math problems easy to hard, greater conformity to difficult ones (ISI)

-Asch found participants conformed because they were afraid of disapproval. Conformity fell to 12.5% when written down answers (NSI)

Question 2

Evaluation of Deutsch and Gerard’s two process theory (2)

Answer 2

-NSI doesn’t effect everyone’s behaviour in the same way. People who care about being liked are nAffiliators(McGhee) more likely to conform(individual differences)

-States ISI and NSI work separately which is not the case as conformity is a complex human behaviour

Question 3

Aschs study of conformity (1)

Answer 3

-Perrin and Spender repeated study with engineering students and only 1/396 conformed. effect not consistent across time so is not a fundamental feature of behaviour

-lucas et al asked easy to hard maths problems and shown answers from others, conformed more when hard problems (task difficulty is a variable affecting)

Question 4

Aschs study of conformity (2)

Answer 4

-only tested male participants but research stars women may be more conformist(Neto) and only from the US an individualistic culture (limited generalisability)

-participants knew they were in study so may have gone along with situation (dc) as task was trivial so no reason to conform(don’t generalise to everyday situations)

Question 5

Evaluation of Zimbardos research (1)

Answer 5

-selected emotionally stable participants who were randomly allocated roles (small individual differences) increase internal validity

-Mohavedi argued participants acted based on stereotypes, for example Eshleman based his on a brutal character from cool hand luke

Question 6

Evaluation of Zimbardos research (2)

Answer 6

-major ethical issue arose due to z’s dual role in the study, eg one student asked to leave and Z responded as a supervisor(faced abuse and not told what they signed up for)
-Fromm said Z exaggerated the power of situation to influence behaviour, eg only a third of guards behaved brutally (over-exaggerated)

Question 7

Evaluation of Milgrams research (1)

Answer 7

-Sheridan and King did similar study with real shocks and puppy’s, 54% of males delivered fatal shock 100% of females (shows results were genuine)

-Holland said it lacked internal validity as they didn’t believe in the set up and guessed shocks weren’t real( some report doubts about shocks)

Question 8

Evaluation of Milgrams research (2)

Answer 8

-The game of death shows a replication of study where contestants paid to give fake shocks to others. Found 80% gave shocks to unconscious man and showed similar signs ie nail biting

-Diana Baumrind was critical at how Z deceived his participants as it’s damages the way participants view psychologists (less likely to volunteer)

Question 9

Evaluation of Milgrams situational variables (1)

Answer 9

-systematically altered one variable at a time and it was kept the same as study replicated with over 1000 participants (internal validity)

• Smith and bond said most replications took place in western societies (can’t apply to people everywhere

Question 10

Evaluation of milgrams situational variables (2)

Answer 10

• Mandel said it’s an excuse for evil behaviour such as that that is offensive to survivors of the holocaust (situational explanation is socially sensitive)

-his findings have been replicated with dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees and found 90% obedience

Question 11

Evaluation of social psychological factors of obedience (1)

Answer 11

-agentic shift theory doesn’t explain many of the research findings eg why some didn’t obey

-the idea of legitimacy of authority can explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes (mai lao massacre) real life application

Question 12

Evaluation of social psychological factors of obedience (2)

Answer 12

-There is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis can’t be explained in terms of authority and agentic state theory. Mandel (1998) described the German reserve police battalion 101 the men shot civilians in a small town in Poland (WW2). They did this even though they were not directly ordered to.

-schmitt showed film of milgrams to students and asked who was responsible for harm, students blamed experimenter(legitimacy of authority)

Question 13

Evaluation of dispositional explanations of obedience (1)

Answer 13

-milgram interviewed 20 fully obedient participants from milgrams original studies, they scored higher on the f-scale than a group of 20 disobedient participants

-millions of people in germany displayed obedient behaviour but they can’t all have the same personality so germans probably identified with the Nazi state

Question 14

Evaluation of dispositional explanations of obedience (2)

Answer 14

-Jahoda suggests that the f-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right wing ideology, so it is not a good explanation as it’s doesn’t consider left wing authoritarianism

-Adorno measure range of variables and found many correlations in them.eg authoritarianism correlated with prejudice against minorities(correlation don’t mean causation)

Question 15

Evaluation of resistance to social influence (social support)

Answer 15

-albrecht et al found in study to help pregnant people resist smoking those with a ‘buddy’ were less likely at the end(real world applications)

-allen and levine found conformity decreased with there was one dissenter in aschs study(free of pressure from group)

Question 16

Evaluation of resistance to social influence (locus of control)

Answer 16

-gamson set up a situation where participants had to produce evidence for a smear campaign again a company, obedience dropped when participants where in groups (88% resisted)

-twenge et al analysed data from american locus of control studies over 40 year period, found over time people have become more resistant(expect people to be more internal)

Question 17

Evaluation of minority influence (1)

Answer 17

-Moscovici et als study showed consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on other people than an inconsistent one(shows importance of consistency)

-the tasks are artificial eg colour of slide and don’t reflect how minorities attempt to change behaviour of majorities in real life (lack external validity)

Question 18

Evaluation of minority influence (2)

Answer 18

in a variation of moscovicis study,participants were able to write their answers down, this shockingly private agreement either the minority position was greater. appears people were reluctant to change their views publicly due to fear of being seen as weird.shows they internalised what the group was saying.

Question 19

Evaluation ofSocial influence and Social change (1)

Answer 19

-Nolan et al did study on energy consumption, group 1 told most residents were trying to reduce their energy, group 2 jsit asked to reduce it. found massive decreases in energy in group 1.

-explanations of how social influence leads to social change relies heavily on asch and milgrams studies (raises doubts on observer validity)

Question 20

Evaluation of social influence and social change (2)

Answer 20

-Bashir et al found that people were less likely to be eco friendly as they don’t want to be like the stereotypical environmentalists( supports view that cryptomnesia may be a necessary part of social change( especially if minority has a negative image)