social influence

• strength of explanations for conformity

  a strength is that there is research support for informational social influence. for example, Jenness asked participants to estimate the number of beans contained in a jar. the results showed the the second estimate moved closer to the group estimate. this is significant as it shows that informational social influence as a theory has validity.
• strength of explanations of conformity

  normative social influence has good real world application. for example, Schultz et al used signs on hotel doors to see if people would conform to reusing their towels. the results showed that there was a 25% reduction in the use of fresh towels in rooms which displayed the sign compared to the control condition. this is significant as it shows that guests had conforms to the norms of the majority group, therefore giving normative social influence a high level of ecological validity
• limitations of explanations for conformity

  neither explanation explains why some people resist NSI and ISI. for example freedom fighters and rebels. this shows that both explanations for conformity cannot be generalised to everyone and therefore cannot account for individual differences. this is important as it shows the explanations lack population validity.
• limitations of explanations for conformity

  it is rare for both NSI and ISI to be tested in real life conditions. for example, most research on the explanations is lab-based. this is important as it the research is low in mundane realism and therefore reduces the external validity of the explanations for conformity.
• strength of Asch's study

  asch used a standardised procedure. for example the same number of trials per group and the same questions asked. this is important as a standardised procedure means that the study can be replicated and therefore repeated replications should show consistent results which equals high reliability.
• strength of Asch's study

  replications of Asch's study have been used to identify cross-cultural differences in conformity. for example Smith and Bond. this is important as it gives validity to the idea that conformity is linked to group cohesion. furthermore, Smith and Bond found that the highest rates of conformity in the study were from collectivist cultures. this shows that these cultures value the needs of the group above individual needs. thus increasing the validity of Asch's research.
• limitation of Asch's research

  the conducted research could be considered as out of date. this is because Asch's research was conducted in the 1940's. this is important as conformity was arguably higher in this time, directly after world war two and before the civil rights and feminist movements. this has led to the study being labelled 'a child of its time' therefore the study lacks temporal validity.
• limitation of Asch's research

  the participants may have guessed the aim of the study due to the simpleness of the task. this means that participants who guessed the aim may have gone along with giving the wrong answer as this is what they thought was required of them. this is significant as it means the study suffered from response bias. therefore response bias reduces the validity of the findings.
• strengths of Zimbardo's study

  there was a high degree of control exerted over the procedure. for example, the participants were highly vetted to factor out prior psychiatric conditions and they were randomly allocated to their roles. this is important as both the measures ensured that individual differences did not confound the results. therefore the study has high internal validity.
• limitation of Zimbardo's prison study

  the study violated many ethical guidelines. for example, there was no fully informed consent, the participants were not given the right to withdraw and there was little protection from harm. this is important as the prisoners suffered both physically and psychologically from the experiment and the guards suffered psychologically. therefore a cost-benefit analysis should have been conducted before the study to show if the harm to the participants outweighed the possibly positive impact the results could have on society and the economy.
• limitation of Zimbardo's study

  some of the participants may have been acting according to demand characteristics. for example, the participants may have been able to guess the aim and behave accordingly. this is significant as it lowers the validity of the findings if participants were playing out expected roles.
• strength of Zimbardo's study

  the study had positive implications on the american prison system. for example, the study created changes to the way that prisons were run to limit violence from guards towards prisoners. this is significant as it shows that the results of the study have real world application which. however looking at the modern day prison system questions the extent of the changes that the study brought about as the system is still highly flawed and there have been many cases of prisoner abuse.
• strengths of explanations for obedience

  agency theory has strong external validity. for example, the agentic state and destructive obedience to an authority figure can be seen in acts of atrocity throughout history like the holocaust where ordinary people were obeying horrific orders and directives from their superiors. this is important as it shows real world application for the explanations therefore the explanations can be generalised to the wider population.
• strength of explanations for obedience

  there is research support for legitimacy of authority. for example, Blass and Schmitt asked students who they felt was responsible for harm to the learner in Milgrams study. the results were that the students blamed the experimenter. this is important as it shows that the legitimacy of authority is a valid concept when discussing destructive obedience.
• limitation of explanations for obedience

  agency theory cannot explain why some people do not obey, even when they would be justified in blaming someone else for their actions. this is important as it shows that the theory only offers a situational explanation of obedience rather than a dispositional explanation of obedience. therefore the acency theory cannot be generalised to the whole population as some people do not obey.
• limitation of explanations for obedience

  both explanations are deterministic. this is because they imply that those who commit acts of destructive obedience have no control over their actions. this is significant as it negates the idea of people as autonomous and able to exercise free will.
• strength of Milgram's study

  Milgrams findings have been reflected in other research on obedience. for example Hoffling et al conducted a field experiment on nurses being told to give unjust doses of an unfamiliar drug by a doctor over the phone. the results showed that 21 out of 22 of the nurses obeyed the unethical order. this is significant as it supports the idea that harmful acts can be committed by seemingly caring people. therefore Milgrams study has high external validity as similar effects as were also observed in his study can be seen in the real world.
• strength of Migrams study

  the use of 15V intervals on the shock generator was effective in showing how destructive obedience does not happen immediatley. this is important as the study extracted the slow erosion of personal values and morals of the participants when faced with prevailing social conditions.
• limitation of Milgrams study

  lacks internal validity. for example, participants may have shown demand characteristics. this means that they realised the shocks were fake and were playing along with the study. this is important as the results are invalid and therefore lack internal validity.
• limitation of Milgrams study

  the study breaks ethical guidelines. for example, participants were decieved as to the true nature of the study. this is important as participants may have suffered psychologically as a result of the study. therefore a cost-benefit analysis should have been conducted to establish if the harm to the participants outweighed the possible positive consequences of the research.
• strength of Milgrams situational variabes

  there is research support. for example Bickmans study gives to support to the idea that situational variables such as uniform affect obedience. this is important as it means there is high ecological validity associated with the variations of the study. furthermore the study also used a degree of control within its distinct conditions of the IV which means it is reliable.
• limitation of Milgrams situational variables

  some variations may have been more difficult to fake. for example the proximity condition in which the teacher had to place the learners hand on the shock plate. this is important because any suspicion from the participants that they were being set up would impact the validity of the findings.
• strength of dispositional explanations for obedience

  the F scale is replicable. this is because it uses standardised questions. this is important as all participants answer the same questions which can be used repeatedly with other samples therefore it generates robust quantative data. furthermore large sample size and quantitative data means that the scale can be tested for reliability.
• strength of dispositional explanations of obedience

  Elms and Milgram added a perspective to Milgrams conclusion that obedience is the result of situational factors. they acknowledged the role of dispositional factors in obedience. this is important as it adresses gaps in Milgrams original conclusion.
• limitation of dispositional explanations of obedience

  using a questionnaire to obtain data is not 100% valid because people misremember details, particularly if the event happened many years ago. this is important as people may be prone to social desirability bias, providing responses which show then in their best light.
• limitation of dispositional explanations of obedience

  the theory is overly simplistic as not everyone who shows high levels of obedience has an authoritarian personality. this means that the theory is over simplistic and therefore both reductionist and deterministic. this is important as it reduces a complex variable to a score on a scale and the theory determines if you possess specific personality traits then you will be obedient, regardless of the situation.
• strength of social support and locus of control

  Hofflings study was replicated by Rank and Jacobson where a doctor phoned nurses and asked them to give a non-lethal dose of Valium. only two of the nurses immediately followed the doctors order. this is important as it shows that social support is a key factor in resisting social influence as the nurses were able to discuss the order first.
• strength of social support and locus of control

  there is research support for LOC. for example Holland repeated Milgrams experiment and found that 37% of participants who refused to continue to 450V had a high internal LOC. this is important as there is validity to the idea that a high LOC is linked to resistance to authority.
• limitation of social support and locus of control

  the argument that social support enables people to resist social influence may not be true for everyone. for example, some people will always obey regardless of the outcome and some will never obey, regardless of the circumstances. this is important as the social support argument does not account for individual differences.
• limitation of social support and locus of control

  Rotter pointed out that LOC only seems to apply to new situations. for example if someone has previously obeyed in one specific situation they will likely to so again regardless of if they have an internal or external LOC. this reduces the validity of the theory to some extent.
• strengths of minority influence

  the real world examples of minority influence suggest that the process of minority influence has direct application and relevance. for example, the civil rights movement. this is important as real world relevance means the theory has high external validity. therefore it can be generalised to real behaviours in real settings.
• strength of minority influence

  there is supporting evidence for minority influence. for example Wood et al conducted a meta-analysis of minority influence. they used almost 100 studies. this is important as it means that it has good reliability. furthermore they found that consistency was a strong factor in minority influence
• limitation of minority influence

  may be due to the personality of the group because minority influence is based on dispositional factors.
• limitation of minority influence

  Moscovici and Nemeth's research are low in mundane realism. for example, participants are not involved in a real situation. arguing about the colour of a slide is a low stake task that has no personal consequence for the participant. furthermore minority influence does not happen during one experimental session; it takes many years to be subsumed into a society
• strengths of the role of social influence processes in social change

  the process of social change is supported by Dickerson. for example, participants who had made a prior commitment spent less time showering the participants who had not done so. therefore prior commitment behaviour results in positive behavioural change.
• strengths of social change

  there are positive implications for the economy when it comes to social change. for example, accepting minority rights means that the workplace is open to more diverse attitudes and practices. this is important as it in turn can boost productivity and creativity.
• limitations of social change

  social change is a slow process and it now without setbacks. the slow pace means that it is difficult to track he progress of social change accuratley and therefore can be hard to know what the exact drivers of social change initially were.
• limitations of social change

  there are negative implications for the economy. for example recycling waste into categories means different bin collections followed by several processes to convert the waste, this is expensive. therefore social change can be expensive.