Burger evaluation points

• Research support

  A strength of Asch’s research is that it has supporting evidence. Lucas et al found that people conform more on difficult tasks . This backs up Asch’s conclusions about how situational factors affecting conformity. Therefore , it strengthens the validity of Asch’s findings
• artificial task

  a limitation is that the study was artificial. identifying line lengths is a trivial task that lacks real-life relevance . this reduces ecological validity as it may not reflect conformity in real-world scenarios . Thus , findings may not generalise beyond the lab setting .
• limited application

  the study lacks generalisability . all participants were American men , limiting its application to women and collectivist cultures . these groups may conform more due to social and cultural influences . therefore , the findings are culturally and gender-biased
• research support for ISI

  ISI is supported by research. Lucas et al. found higher conformity on harder math problems when participants were unsure of their answers.

  This suggests people conform when they believe others know better.This strengthens ISI as a key explanation for conformity.
• research support for NSI

  NSI has research support. Asch found that conformity dropped to 12.5% when participants could write their answers privately, showing they felt pressure to conform publicly.This supports the idea that people conform to avoid rejection or disapproval.This demonstrates NSI as a valid explanation for conformity.
• individual differences in NSI

  NSI does not apply equally to everyone. McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that people high in need for affiliation are more likely to conform. This shows that personality traits influence how much individuals are affected by NSI. NSI may not fully explain conformity without considering individual differences.
• control

  A strength of the SPE is its control over variables. Participants were emotionally stable and randomly assigned roles to rule out personality differences. This increased internal validity by ensuring behaviour differences were due to roles, not individual traits. This enhances confidence in drawing conclusions about the influence of social roles.
• lack of realism

  A limitation is that the SPE lacked realism. Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued participants were acting based on stereotypes, like the guard imitating a character from Cool Hand Luke. This suggests participants conformed to perceived expectations, limiting the study’s ability to generalize to real-world settings. This reduces the external validity of the findings.
• exaggerates power of roles

  A limitation is that Zimbardo exaggerated the role of social roles. Fromm (1973) noted only one-third of guards acted brutally, while others resisted or helped prisoners. This indicates dispositional factors like personality also influenced behaviour. Therefore, the study may overstate the situational influence of roles on behaviour.
• research support

  A strength is that Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary. Beauvois et al. (2012) found 80% of participants in a reality TV setting delivered the maximum shock level, displaying similar anxiety signs as Milgram’s participants. This supports Milgram’s conclusions about obedience and shows the findings apply beyond the original context. This enhances the reliability of Milgram's study.
• low internal validity

  A limitation is that Milgram’s study may not have tested real obedience.

  Perry (2013) found many participants doubted the shocks were real, with two-thirds disobedient when they suspected demand characteristics. This suggests participants may have been role-playing rather than genuinely obeying authority. This reduces the internal validity of Milgram’s conclusions.
• alternative interpretation

  A limitation is that Milgram’s findings may not reflect blind obedience. Haslam et al. (2014) argued participants only obeyed up to the fourth verbal prod but disobeyed when ordered to continue. This aligns with social identity theory, suggesting participants identified with the scientific goals rather than blindly obeying authority. This challenges Milgram’s interpretation of obedience and emphasises group identification.
• research support

  A strength is the influence of situational variables on obedience. Bickman (1974) found people were twice as likely to obey orders from a confederate dressed as a security guard compared to one in everyday clothes. This shows situational factors, like uniforms, have a significant effect on obedience. This supports Milgram’s emphasis on situational variables.
• cross-cultural replications

  Milgram’s findings have been replicated across cultures. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) found 90% of Dutch participants obeyed in a more realistic procedure, confirming Milgram’s findings on proximity. This suggests Milgram’s findings are generalisable to other cultures and genders. This enhances the external validity of Milgram’s research.
• low internal validity

  A limitation is that participants may have doubted the authenticity of the shocks. Orne and Holland (1968) argued participants guessed the procedure was fake, with demand characteristics influencing their behaviour. This reduces the credibility of Milgram’s findings as genuine obedience may not have been measured. This lowers the internal validity of the research.
• agentic state theory

  Milgram’s study shows participants obeyed when responsibility shifted to the authority figure. This supports the agentic state theory as they acted as the experimenter’s agent. It doesn’t explain cases like Rank and Jacobson’s study, where nurses disobeyed authority.
• Obedience alibi revisited

  The agentic state helps explain obedience in Milgram’s experiments. However, Mandel’s study shows the German Battalion acted autonomously, not under orders. This challenges the idea that obedience always comes from the agentic state.
• legitimacy of authority

  Explains cultural differences in obedience, like Germany’s high levels (85%) versus Australia’s low levels (16%). Authority is perceived differently across societies. It cannot explain disobedience in hierarchical settings, suggesting other factors are involved.
• research support

  Evidence from Milgram and Elms supports the Authoritarian Personality explanation.They found obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale than disobedient participants, suggesting a link between obedience and authoritarian traits.
• limited explanation

  The Authoritarian Personality provides an explanation for individual cases of obedience.For example, it links authoritarian traits to higher levels of obedience. However, it cannot explain mass obedience, like in Nazi Germany, where many people obeyed despite not having authoritarian personalities. Social identity theory offers a more realistic explanation in such cases. This suggests the Authoritarian Personality is limited as a general explanation for widespread obedience.
• political bias

  The F-scale highlights tendencies toward extreme right-wing ideology.

  However, it overlooks authoritarianism on the left, such as in communist regimes like Soviet Russia or Maoist China. This makes the theory politically biased as it fails to account for obedience across the political spectrum. This suggests Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive explanation of obedience.
• real world research support

  Research supports the idea that social support can help individuals resist social influence. Albrecht et al. (2006) found that pregnant teens with a mentor were less likely to smoke compared to those without a mentor, showing the effectiveness of social support in real-world interventions. This demonstrates how social support can play a crucial role in resisting negative peer pressure.
• research support for dissenting peers

  Research highlights the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience.

  Gamson et al. (1982) found that 88% of participants in groups resisted producing evidence for a smear campaign, suggesting that peer .This indicates that dissenting peers can significantly encourage disobedience by reducing the legitimacy of authority.
• research support

  Research supports the link between locus of control (LOC) and resistance to obedience. Holland (1967) found that 37% of internals resisted authority in a Milgram-type study compared to 23% of externals, showing internals are more likely to resist obedience. This strengthens the validity of LOC as an explanation for disobedience.
• contradictory research

  Research challenges the link between LOC and resistance. Twenge et al. (2004) found that over 40 years, people became more resistant to obedience but also more external, contradicting the expected connection between resistance and internal LOC. This questions the validity of LOC as an explanation for resistance to social influence.
• research support for consistency

  Research demonstrates the importance of consistency in minority influence. Moscovici et al.'s (1969) study showed that a consistent minority had a greater effect on changing people's views compared to an inconsistent one. Wood et al. (1994) also found that consistent minorities were more influential. This suggests that consistency is essential for a minority to effectively influence the majority.
• research support for deeper processing

  Evidence shows that a minority view leads to deeper processing of ideas. Martin et al. (2003) found that people were more resistant to changing their opinion after hearing a minority group, suggesting that the minority's message had a more enduring effect and was processed more deeply. This supports the idea that minority influence is more impactful because it leads to deeper processing.
• artificial task

  One limitation of minority influence research is the artificial nature of the tasks. Studies like Moscovici's (1969) slide color task are far removed from real-life situations, such as jury decision-making or political campaigning. This means that the findings lack external validity and are limited in their ability to explain how minority influence works in real-world scenarios.
• research support for normative influence

  Research supports the role of normative social influence in driving behavior change. Nolan et al. (2008) found that people reduced their energy usage when they were informed that most of their neighbors were doing the same. This shows that social influence based on normative pressures can lead to real-world change. This supports the idea that conformity, driven by the desire to fit in, is a valid mechanism for social change.
• minority influence explains change

  One strength is that minority influence can explain how social change occurs. Nemeth (2009) argues that minorities encourage divergent thinking, which broadens perspectives and leads to better decision-making. This suggests that minority influence encourages creative solutions to social problems. This shows that dissenting minorities have an important role in stimulating new ideas, and their influence can drive positive social change.
• role of deeper processing

  A limitation is that deeper processing may not always be a key factor in how minorities drive change. Mackie (1987) suggests that deeper processing may occur more in response to majority influence, as people are forced to reconsider their views when they encounter differing majority opinions. This challenges the assumption that minority influence is the primary driver of deeper processing, questioning the validity of this explanation for social change.