Social Psychology Flashcards
AO1 of Asch’s study
- To investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority who gave obviously wrong answer
- Method: 123 American males were told they were taking part of a visual perception study, in a group there were 7-9 confederates and 1 naive ppt, he tested conformity by showing ppts 2 cards, 1 standard line and 3 comparison lines, the confederates where asked to give the incorrect answer on 12/18 critical trials
- Results: On the 12 critical trials he found that the naïve ppts gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time, 75% conformed at least once, 25% didn’t conform to the pressure, 5% conformed the whole time
- Conclusion: The judgement of the individuals were affected by majority’s opinions; influenced by normative social influence
ASCH’S VARIATIONS ON HIS ORIGINAL STUDY:
- Group size: Conformity rates increase as size of majority influece increases, but only to a certain extent. Asch found that using 1 naive ppt and 1 confederate in the group, there was a 3% conformity rate, rising to 13% with 2 confederates, and 32% with 3 confederates, increasing the no. of confederates after 3 had no effect on the overall conformity rate (3–4 has optimum effect)
- Unanimity means to what degree the participants have an agreement with each other, conformity rates have been found to increase when the majority influence was unanimous. Asch found that when the participant were given the support of another participant or a confederate instructed to give the right answers throughout, conformity dropped to 5.5%
- Task difficulty: Conformity increases when the difficulty of the tast increases, as the right answer becomes less obvious. Asch made the comparison lines so that they were closer in size, which made the ppt unsure of their answer so they looked to others for guidance for the right answer, and he found that the ppts were more likely to conform to the wrong answer
AO3 of Asch’s study
Biased sample - 123 american men within working age
Lacks the ability to generalise the findings to other parts of the population such as females and those from collectivist cultures. This could be problematic as collectivist cultures for example, are usually more concerned with group and collectivist goals than those raised in individualistic cultures. Therefore it may be that certain cultures would show higher rates of conformity than those in Asch’s sample
This limitation was supported by evidence from Smith and Bond (1998) who conducted a meta-analysis of conformity research based on Asch’s original study. It was found that collectivist cultures such as Fiji showed higher rates of conformity than individualistic cultures such as those in France
Therefore whilst Asch’s research was succesful in highlighting how minority groups can conform to the majority, it’s limited in its ability to predict rates of conformity across diff cultures and conclude that conformity is a process performed by all universally
It employed an artificial situation and an artificial task
The group that naïve participants were part of is very different to the kind of group typically encountered in everyday life that we interact with and become familiar with (Fiske, 2014).
Additionally, matching lines isn’t an everyday life experience and is quite insignificant compared to real life situations involving pressures to conform. Therefore, Asch’s research lacks ecological validity and may only explain conformity in special circumstances that bear little similarity to real life.
The study lacks temporal validity
Asch conducted the study in 1950 America. During this time in America , people were more likely to conform to social norms due to concerns about the rise in communism. Research conducted by Perrin and Spencer who repeated Asch’s study several decades later found much lower conformity rates compared to Asch’s original study (conformity was only found in only 1 of 396 trials). This is a weakness because we can’t say the results of the study would’ve been the same if replicated in todays society and his findings weren’t consistent across time, which reduces the validity of Asch’s research.
2 explanations for conformity
Deutsch and Gerard developed the dual-process model, arguing there are two main reasons why people conform: normative social influence and informational social influence
What is informative social influence
(explanations for conformity)
- When a person is more likely to have the desire to be correct in the group
- Its associated with internalisation where the person would conform publicly and privately as well
- It’s the most permanent type of conformity as it continues once the influence is no longer present
Informational social influence is more likely to lead to internalisation - desire to be correct, group has more knowledge is permanent
Wanna be right
What is normative social influence
(explanations for conformity)
- When a person is more likely to have the desire to be liked by the group and fit in
- It’s associated with compliance as the person conforms publicly but disagrees privately
- Its a temporary change as it only exists when the group is present
Normative social influence is more likely to lead to compliance - desire to fit in is temporary
Wanna be liked
AO3 of explanations for conformity
- One strength of the normative social influence explanation of conformity is that there is supporting evidence. For example, Asch found that on 12 critical trials, there was approximately a 37% conformity rate to wrong answers. Participants conformed to the incorrect responses given by the confederates even when the correct answer was obvious. Participants conformed because they wanted to be part of the majority. The participants had a ‘desire to be liked.’ Also they wanted to ‘avoid being rejected’. Therefore, this supports the role of normative social influence in conformity, which increases the validity of this explanation
- One strength of the informational social influence explanation of conformity is that there is supporting evidence. For example, Lucas et al. asked students to give answers to mathematical problems that were easy or difficult. Students were more likely to give the wrong answer (conform to the people around them) when the questions were difficult rather than when they were easy ones. Participants looked to other: for answers because they had a ‘desire to be right’ and in this ‘ambiguous situation’ they didn’t know the answers themselves. Therefore, this supports the role of informational social influence in conformity. Thus, increasing the validity of this explanation
- A further limitation is that there are alternative reasons for why people conform. For example, Deutsch & Gerard found a 7X greater rate of conformity when the other group members belonged to the participants’ in-groups (shared interests and identity) rather than an out-group (different interests/identity). Therefore, belonging to a certain group may have a greater influence on conformity than seeking approval from others. This suggests that the dual process model may be an incomplete explanation of conformity because it cannot account for the role of social circumstances in conformity, which reduces the validity of the model
What is obedience
Form of social influence
Where an individual follows a direct order from a percieved authority figure
AO1 of Milgrims Study
A - Milgram wanted to find out whether ordinary people (not just German soldiers in the Second World War) would obey an authority figure, even when the figure was ‘unjust’ and they were required to injure another person
M -
* Milgram recruited 40 male participants by advertisements saying he was looking for ppts for a study about memory, offered $4.50
* There were 2 confederates: an experimenter (the authority figure) and a learner. The participant took on the role of the teacher and was told to administer increasingly strong electric shocks to the learner, every time a mistake was made
* The learner sitting in the other room, gave mainly wrong answers and received (fake) electric shocks starting at 15 volts and going up in 15 volts until they reached 300 volts. At 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no responses to the next question. He repeated this at 315 volts and from then on said nothing
* If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of ‘prods’, which were repeated if necessary - these include ‘please continue’ and ‘the experimente requires that you continue’
R -
- All participants went up to 300 volts
- 65% went up to 450 volts
- 12.5% stopped at 30 volts
The participants showed signs of extreme tension - many were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips etc. Three participants even passed out
AO3 of Milgrims Study
Population validity
* A weakness of Milgram’s research is that it is lacking population validity.
* Milgrams study used only 40 male participants from the USA
* This means his sample was gender biased and unrepresentative of females and the general population.
* Therefore, the results cannot be applied to females or any other cultures because the sample consisted solely of Americans males.
* Additionally, collectivist cultures may have had lower levels of obedience because they care more about others. Therefore, this reduces the validity of Milgram’s research because his sample was lacking population validity
Ethical issues
* A limitation of Milgram’s study is that it has several ethical concerns.
* Milgram’s study contained deception because participants were deceived on the purpose of the study, which questions the extent to which correct informed consent was obtained
* The right to withdraw wasn’t really provided to participants because they were given verbal prompts to make them stay
* Additionally, participants were subjected to psychological harm, because they were exposed to extremely stressful situations
* These ethical concerns present in Milgram’s research question the credibility of such research. Therefore, reducing the reliability of Milgram’s findings
Research support
- There is research to support the presence that an authority figure can have on obedience.
- For example, Hofling et al. studied obedience in a hospital. Nurses were asked by an authority figure to give a potentially dangerous dose of an unfamiliar drug to a patient. 95% of nurses (21 out of 22) followed this order. The nurses obeyed the order because they were asked to do so by a doctor who is an authority figure who is credible and legitimate.
- Therefore, this shows that Milgram’s research is supported by other research findings and in real life settings, Milgram’s findings have been shown to be valid
,
Variables affecting obedience
Proximity
Milgrim found that the closer that the ppts were shown the consequence of their actions the less likely they were to obey orders.
* The teacher and the learner were in the same room, so the teacher could both see and hear the effects of their actions. Obedience rates dropped from 65% —> 40%
* Where the teacher had to physically force the learners hand onto a shock plate when the learner refused to continue putting it there voluntarily. Obedience rates dropped even further to 30%
* Milgram tried moving the experimenter to a different room and they gave orders over the phone. Obedience rates dropped to 20.5%
Location
The location or setting of an environment or situation can affect the ways a request is viewed which can affect the likelihood of obedience. A more prestigious location can lead to more legitimate authority. Milgram conducted a variation of his experiment in a rundown office block. In this variation, 48% of participants obeyed 450 volts, compared to with 65% obedience in the prestigious university first used (Yale University). The legitimacy of the university increased the power and authority of the experimenter, as well as the amount of trust the participants felt in them - leading to higher obedience rates
AO3 of variables affecting obedience
One strength of these variations is there is other field research have supported some of these factors.
The experiment done by Hofling (1966) showed how some individuals would also obey an authority figure when told to do a potentially harmful task over the phone. The experiment conducted was a field experiment conducted in a hospital, nurses were instructed to give a patient 20 mg of the drug – Astrogen (which was double the recommended dosage), told to do so over the phone from an unfamiliar doctor. It was found that 21/22 of the nurses gave the dosage, even though they knew it should only be administrated if the doctor gives written approval. This experiment supports the fact that location and proximity is a factor that affects obedience, since the Hofling experiment took place in a hospital which is a prestigous location and the doctor recommended the dosages on the phone shows that the proximity + location made it more likely for the nurses to obey, which therefore gives the factors reliability.
Population validity
* A weakness of Milgram’s research is that it is lacking population validity.
* Milgrams study used only 40 male participants from the USA
* This means his sample was gender biased and unrepresentative of females and the general population.
* Therefore, the results cannot be applied to females or any other cultures because the sample consisted solely of Americans males.
* Additionally, collectivist cultures may have had lower levels of obedience because they care more about others. Therefore, this reduces the validity of Milgram’s findings because his sample was lacking population validity
AO1 Milgrims Agency Theory
- Milgram argued that people make an agentic shift, back and fourth between an autonomous state and an agentic state
- Autonomous state: they’re responsible for their actions, free to behave according to our own principles and morals
- Agentic shift: acting on behalf of someone else who is perceived as having a higher authority, where they stop taking responsiblilty for their own behaviour and diffuse their responsibility onto another person, they no longer view themselves as acting out their own wishes but sees themselves as an agent of carrying out wishes of others.
- Binding factors such as denial keeps individuals in the agentic state as it allows them to ignore the damaging effects of their behaviour
- Being in this state means that individuals may experience high levels of stress and anxiety (moral strain)
Obedience was high in Milgram’s original study when the experimenter was in the same room as the participant (65%) but was reduced when Milgram asked the experimenter to give instructions via the telephone rather than being in the same room as the participant (20.5%)
AO3 Milgrims Agency Theory
- A strength of the agentic state as an explanation of obedience is that it has research support.
- For example, Dambrun and Vatiné found that the participants who gave the most electric shocks when ordered to do so in a torture simulation tended to hold the experimenter and the victim responsible for what happened, rather than themselves.
- This refusal to accept personal responsibility in participants who were most obedient showed that the agentic state does explain why people will obey even in situations where they know their actions are wrong.
- This increases the validity of the agentic state explanation of obedience
AO1 of Legitimacy of Authority
- Legitimacy of Authority - People are most obedient when the authority figure is considered credible and legitimate
- Legitimate social power is held by authority figures (eg officers and teachers) whose roles are defined by society
- This usually gives the person the right to exert control over behaviour of others and others will usually accept it
Milgram conducted a variation of his experiment in a rundown office block. In this variation, 48% of participants obeyed 450 volts, compared to with 65% obedience in the prestigious university first used (Yale University). The legitimacy of the university increased the power and authority of the experimenter, as well as the amount of trust the participants felt in them - leading to higher obedience rates
