Evaluations

• Limitations of Asch's study


  task and situation = artificial; participants aware they were in a research study so may have complied with demand characteristics (what was expected). Furthermore, Susan Fiske in 2014 said Asch's groups didn't resemble groups we experience in everyday life

  Androcentric and ethnocentric. USA = individualist culture, whereas China and North Korea = collectivist cultures, which have higher conformity rates. Other research also suggest women = more conformist (Neto 1995)
• Strength of Asch's study?

  Has research support. E.g. Todd Lucas et al (2006) asked participants to solve 'hard' and 'easy' maths problems. Participants given answers by 3 other students (were confederates). Participants conformed more when the problems = more difficult and they doubted their own mathematical abilities, or if they were a student in a more creative field like theatre. STEM pupils conformed less.
• Strength of NSI/ISI


  Research support; Asch's 1951 line study. When participants interviewed after, some said they conformed; afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote down answers conformity fell to 12.5%, as normative group pressure was removed

  Todd Lucas et al (2006) with the maths problems. When problems = ambiguous and new naïve participants looked to the three confederates for answers; doubted themselves and wanted to be correct (ISI)
• Limitation of NSI


  does not predict conformity in every case. There are people known as nAffiliators, who are concerned about being liked by others. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform. Shows NSI underlies conformity more for some than it does for others, and that there are individual differences in conformity
• Strength of Zimbardo's SPE


  control over key variables. For example the selection of participants, of which only emotionally stable volunteers were selected and randomly assigned prisoner or guard, meaning behaviour was due to the social role itself. Therefore, the SPE had high internal validity, so conclusions about effects of social roles on conformity can be confidently drawn
• Limitations of Zimbardo's SPE


  Lacked realism/ecological validity. Participants' behaviour based on the stereotypes of their social role. E.g. one guard claimed he took inspiration from film 'Cool Hand Luke'

  Exaggeration of the power of roles; only 1/3 acted brutally, 1/3 behaved fairly and 1/3 tried to help prisoners. Therefore, SPE minimised influence of dispositional factors e.g. personality
• Strength of Adorno's authoritarian personality


  Research support from Milgram. Him and Elms in 1966 interviewed a small sample of original, fully obedient participants from Milgram's shock study. All completed the f scale. All 20 scored significantly higher on the f scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants
• Limitations of the authoritarian personality


  Ethical issues. Being told that you are facist, which is a very extreme and societally hated title, would cause psychological harm and would most definitely cause the individual distress.

  Too deterministic and simplified; the questions only allow for responses from 1-6 and aren't open ended, excluding explanations for choices and eliminating cognitive and dispositional factors
• Strengths of milgrams study


  Has research support. Hofling et al.s 1966 study on the 22 nurses, which produced similar results to milgrams study. Also replicated in Beauvios et al. (2012) documentary, and the behaviour presented was almost identical to milgrams study

  Uses scientific methods; lab experiment, participant given small sample shock, and couldn't see learner
• Limitations of milgrams study


  Ethical issues; participants were deceived, and unaware of the true nature of the study. Furthermore, participants experienced extreme stress and psychological harm; they were sweating, trembling and stuttering when hearing the learner scream. One participant was so stressed they even had an epileptic seizure
• Describe Kilham and Mann, as well as Mantel


  Kilham and Mann in 1976, replicated milgrams study, finding that only 16% of female Australian participants reached the full 450V. Then repeated by Mantel, and 85% of participants reached the full 450V
• Evaluate the explanation of the agentic state in obedience


  The agentic state has research support. E.g. milgram found participants were firstly hesitant to administer electric shocks. When the experimenter said he would be liable for any damages, most continued without objection; participants could displace their moral strain

  However, has limited explanation. E.g. doesn't explain Rank and Jacobsons 1977 hospital study; 16/18 nurses disobeyed the doctors orders, remaining autonomous
• Evaluate the explanation of cultural differences in obedience


  Useful explanation ; can explain the difference in extent to obedience between different cultures. E.g. kilham and Mann in 1974, found only 16% of female Australian participants reached 450V in a milgram style study, whereas Mantel found with Germans this figure was 85%
• Evaluate the explanation of social support in resistance to obedience


  Useful; has real-world research support. E.g. Susan Albrecht et al (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, which helped pregnant teens aged 14-19 resists peer pressure to smoke. At end of 8 week programme those with a buddy significantly less likely to smoke

  Useful; has research support for impacts of dissenting peers in resisting obedience. E.g. Gamsom et al
• Describe Gamson et als study


  1982, asked participants to produce supporting evidence for an oil company's smear campaign. 29/33 participants rebelled against these orders; they were in groups and had social support
• Evaluate the explanation of LOC in resistance to obedience


  Useful; has research support. E.g. Holland, in 1967, repeated Milgrams baseline study and measured whether participants had internal or external LOCs. 37% of internals stopped before 450V, only 23% of externals stopped before 450V.

  Not useful; has contradicting research. E.g. twenge et al (2004)
• Describe Twenge et als 2004 study


  Analysed data from American LOC studies from 1960-2002. Data showed people became more resistant to obedience, however also more external. Opposes explanation of LOC in resistance to obedience; would expect people to become more internal with increased resistance to obedience
• Evaluate dispositional explanations into obedience 


  Has research support from milgram and elms; interviewed small sample of completely obedient participants in milgrams study, giving them the f scale. These 20 scored much higher than 20 disobedient participants

  Limited explanation; cannot explain obedience in everyone. E.g. not everyone in Nazi Germany would have an authoritarian personality

  Ethical issues; distressing to be branded a fascist
• Evaluate normative influence on social influence

  Useful; Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people's energy use habits. Hung messages on califorians front doors every week for a month. Key message is most trying to reduce their energy use. Control group = no reference to others behaviour. Larger decrease in first group

  However, social norms dont always impact behaviour. Foxcroft (2015) reviewed social norm interventions, including 70 studies aiming to use social norms to reduce student alcohol use. Only a small reduction when exposed to these norms
• Evaluate minority influence in bringing about social change


  Psychs can explain how minority influence brings about social change. Nemeth says social change is due to type of thinking minorities inspire. We engage in divergent thinking when we consider minority arguments (broad thinking, in which thinker considers more options). Nemeth argues this leads to better decisions. So dissenting minorities are essential in bringing about social change.
• Evaluate minority influence research 


  Research support for consistency. Wendy Wood et al (1994) conducted meta analysis of almost 100 similar studies. Found more consistent minorities were most influential.

  Research support for deeper processing. Martin et al (2003)

  Not useful; tasks are artificial. Moscovici et al in identifying colours of blue/green slides. Far removed from jury situations and politics, where outcomes are much more important. Therefore studies lack external validity