Social influence AO3

Created by

Gabriella Piper

Cards (36)

Strength of Asch's conformity study: controlled environment 
P - Controlled environment

E - Conducted in lab.
- High control over extreneous variables.
- Easier to demonstrate cause and effect.

A - However...
- Participants may have experienced demand characteristics.
- The artificial task causes study to lack mundane realism.

K - Not generalisable to everyday, real world, situations.
Strength of Asch's conformity study: Research support 
P - Reasearch support.
- To investigate effects of task difficulty.

E - Lucas et al.
- Asked participants to solve easy and hard maths problems.
- Participants were given incorrect answers from three other students (confederates).
- The participants conformed more often when the problems were harder.

K - Asch was correct in suggesting task difficulty affects conformity.
Limitation of Asch's conformity study:limited application 
P - Limited application.
- Participants were only American men.

E - Neto (1995)
- Suggests women may be more conformist as they're more concerned about social relationships and being accepted.

A - Furthermore...
- Study was conducted on men from the USA (an individualist culture - more concern about themselves than their social group).
- Research shows that conformity is higher in collectivist cultures.

K - Asch's reseach lacks population validity.
- Tells us little about conformity in women and collectivist cultures.
Limitation of Asch's conformity study: ethical issues 
P - Ethical issues

E - Deception.
- Told participants they were taking part in a vision test.

A - However...
- Study required deception to produce valid results.
- If participants were aware of true aim demand characteristics may have affected results.
- Interviews were conducted after study to find reason for conformity.

K - Asch's study gave undeniable insight into why people conform.
- May help avoid mindless destructive conformity in the future.
- Benefits outweigh the costs.
Strength of NSI: research support 
P - Research support.
- Evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.

E - Asch interviewed participants.
- Some said they were self-conscious of giving correct answer, and they were affraid of disapproval.
- When participants wrote answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.
- This is becauses giving answers privately leads to decreased normative group pressure.

K - Some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing.
Strength of ISI: research support 
P - Research support.
- Evidence supports it is an explanation for conformity.

E - Lucas et al.
- Participants conformed more often to incorrect answers when maths problems were more difficult.
- This is because when the problems were easy participants 'knew their own mind', but when they were difficult the situation became ambiguous.
- The participants did not want to be wrong so they relied on the answers they were given.

K - ISI is a valid explanation for conformity as the reason for conformity in this experiment was 'desire to be right'.
Limitation of NSI: individual differences 
P - Individual differences
- NSI doesn't predict conformity in every case.

E - Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others.
- These people are known as: nAffiliators - they have a strong need for affiliation.
- McGhee and Teevan found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.
- Those who dont care about being liked or disliked are less likely to be influenced by NSI.

K - NSI explains conformity for some people more than it does for others.
- Conformity cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures due to individual differences.
Limitation of ISI: individual differences 
P - Individual differences.
- ISI doesn't predict conformity for every case.

E - Perrin and Spencer.
- Study conducted on engineering students who were confident with precision.
- The confederates all agreed to an incorrect answer to try and change the opinion of the real participant (engineering student).
- They found very little conformity.

K - People who are knowledgeable and confident in their knowldge are less influenced by an apparent 'right' answer.
- There are differences in how people respond in terms of ISI.
Strength of Zimbardo's SPE: control 
P - Control over key variables.

E - Selection of participants.
- Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to roles of prisoner and guard.
- This was one way that researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation for findings.
- If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance (not disposition), then their behaviour must be due to the role itself.

K - This degree of control increased internal validity of the study.
- More confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity.
Strength of Zimbardo's SPE: ethical issues 
P - No apparent ethical issues.

E - Stanford university ethics comitee approved the study.
- No deception.
- Participants were informed before study that some of their human rightd would be suspended if they chose to take part.

A - However...
- During study participants were not offered protection from harm or right to withdraw.
- They suffered psychological abuse / implications.
- Made to do physical labour, e.g. push ups.

K - In the cost benefit analysis it can be argued that what we've learn about human nature outwieghs the cost of harm to a few participants.
- In interviews, participants stated they learnt something about human nature and were glad to have taken part.
Limitation of Zimbardo's SPE: lack of realism 
P - SPE did not have the realism of a true prison.

E - Banuazizi and Movahedi
- Argued participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to the role due to demand characteristics.
- Participants 'performances' were based on their steryotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.
- One guard claimed he based his brutal role on a character from the film 'Cool Hand Luke'.
- This would also explain why the prisoners rioted.

K - Findings of SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.
Limitation of Zimbardo's SPE: exaggeration of the power of roles 
P - Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour.

E - Only 1/3 of the guards actually behaved in a brutal manner.
- Another 1/3 tried to apply the rules fairly.
- The rest actively tried to help and support the prisoners.
- They sympathised: offered cigarettes and reinstated privileges.
- Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.

K - Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles due to situational factors and minimised the influence of dispositional factors.
Strength of Milgrams research: research support 
P - Research support from a real life setting.

E - Hofling (1966).
- Arranged for a nurse to recieve a call from an uknown doctor who asked her to administer 20mg of an unkown drug to a patient.
- If the nurse obeyed, they would be breaking several hospital rules.
- 21/22 nurses obeyed the orders.

A - However...
- Contradictory research by Rank and Jacobsen who replicated Hofling's procedure.
- But this time the nurse used a common drug (valium) at three times the recommended level.
- 2/18 nurses obeyed.

K - This suggests that when participants are naive to the consequences of their obedience they are more likely to obey.
Strength of Milgram's research: internal validity 
P - Internal validity.

E - Milgram reported that 75% of his participants in post study interviews said they believed the shocks were real.
- Coolican (1996) also agreed that Milgram's research was valid as video's show the participants in Milgrams study taking the situation very seriously and experiencing real distress.

A - Futhermore...
- Rosenhan replicated Milgram's experiment and found that nearly 70% believed the shocks were real.

K - Demand characteristics didn't play a major role.
- However, a sizeable portion of participants may have been subject to them, decreasing internal validity slightly.
Limitation of Milgram's research: ethical issues 
P - Ethical issues.

E - Deception.
- Participants were told the study was about memory.
- Thought the shocks were real.
- Right to withdraw.
- Experimenter gave 1 of 4 prods when participants wanted to dissent.
- Protection from harm.
- Participants suffered psychological distress.

A - However...
- The true aim of study had to be withheld to avoid demand characteristics.

K - Milgram's research wasn't ethical.
- The benefit of insight into obedience outweighs the cost of psychological harm to a few participants.
Limitation of Milgram's research: cultural variations 
P - Doesn't consider cultural variations.
- Assumes obedience is a universal behaviour.

E - Mantell (1971).
- Replicated experiment among males in germany and found obedience levels of 85%.
- Kilham et al (1974).
- Replicated experiment among females in Australia and found obedience levels of 16%.

K - Milgram's experiment lacks population validity becuase it's ethnocentric.
Strength of research into situational variables affecting obedience: research support 
P - Research support.
- The influence of situational variables on obedience.

E - Bickman (1974).
- Field experiment in New York.
- Three confederates dressed in different outfits. (1 -jacket and tie, 2 - milkman, 3- guard).
- The confederates stood on the street individually asking passers by to perform taks such as picking up litter or giving a coin for the parking meter.
- People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a guard than the on dressed in jacket and tie.

K - Supports the view that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience.
Strength of research into situational variables affecting obedience: cross-cultural replications 
P - Milgram's findings have been replicated in other cultures.

E - Meeus and Raaijmakers (1996)
- Used a more realistic procedure to study obedience in dutch participants.
- The participants were ordered to say stressful things to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job.
- 90% of the participants obeyed.
- The researcher replicated Milgram's findings concerning proximity.
- When the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.

K - Milgram's findings are not limited to Americans or males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too.
Limitation of research into situational variables affecting obedience: low internal validity 
P - Low internal validity.
- Participants may have been aware procedure was faked,

E - Orne and Holland (1968)
- Criticised that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked.
- They pointed out it was even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables.
- E.g. when the experimenter was replaced by an ordinary member of the public.

K - In all of Milgram's studies its unlear whether the findings are due to the operation of obedience or because participants saw through the deception and responded to demand characteristics.
Strength of situational explanations (agentic state) of obedience: research support 
P - Research support.
- Milgram's study.

P - Most of Milrgram's participants resisted to giving shocks at some point.
- They often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure.
- One of these was "Who is responsible if Mr. Wallace (the learner) is harmed?".
- The experimenter said "I'm responsible".
- The participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections.

K - Once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter's agent, as Milgram suggested.
Strength of situational explanations (legitimacy of authority) of obedience: explains cultural differences 
P - Useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

E - Replications of Milgram's study shows that obedience to authority differs across different cultures.
- 16% of female Australain participants went up to 450 volts.
- 85% of German participants went up to 450 volts.

K - In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
- This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to percieve authority figures.
Limitation of situational explanations (agentic shift) of obedience: dispositional explanation 
P - Dispositional explanation..
- Obedience may be better explained by 'plain cruelty'.

E - Milgram's participants may have used the situation to express their sadistic tendencies.
- In the SPE, guards rapidly esculated to inflicting cruelty to prisoners even though there was no authority figure telling them to do so.

K - May not be agentic control which causes obedience but certain aspects of human nature.
Limitation of situational explanations (legitimacy of authority) of obedience: cannot explain all obedience 
P - Cannot explain instances of disobedience in a heirarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clearn and accepted.

E - Rank and Jacobsons.
- Most of the nurses were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure.
- A significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed depsite recognising the experimenters scientific authority.

K - Some people may just be more obedient than others.
- Innate tendencies to obey or disobey have greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of the authority figure.
Strength of dispositional explanations (authoritarian personality) for obedience: research support 
P - Research support from milgram.
- For authoritarian personality.

E - Elms and Milgram (1966).
- Interviewd a small sample of participants from Milgram's baseline procedure, that had been fully obedient.
- They all completeed the F-scale as part of the interview.
- These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.
- They two groups were very different in terms of authoritarianism.

A - However...
- When the researchers analysed the participants F-scales, they found that obedient participants had a number of characteristics unusual for authoritarians.
- Milgram's obedient participants did not glorify their father, experience unusual levels of punishment in childhood or have particularly hostile attitudes towards their mothers.

K - Link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex.
- Some characteristics of authroitarian personality may be linked to obedience but not as a whole.
Limitation of dispositional explanations (authoritarian personality) for obedience: limited explanation 
P - Limited explantation.
- Authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a county's population.

E - E.g. in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed obedient, racist and and anti-Semitic behaviour.
- This was despite the fact that they must have different in their personalities in all sorts of ways.
- It's extremely unlikely they could all possess an authoritarian personality.

A - An alternative view is that the majority of German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state, and scapegoated the outgroup of Jews, a social identity theory approach

K - Adorno's theory is limited because an alternative explanation is much more realistic.
Limitation of dispositional explanation for obedience: political bias 
P - F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology.

E - Christie and Jahoda.
- Argued that the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality.
- They point out the reality of left-wing authoritarianism in the shape of Russian Bolshevism or Chinese Maoism.
- Extreme left-wing and right-wing ideologies have a lot in common.
- E.g. they both emphasise the importance of complete obeidnece to political authority.

K - Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience across the whole political spectrum.
Strength of social support as an explanation of resistance to social influence: real-world research support 
P - Research evidence.
- For the positive effects of social support.

E - Albrecht et al.
- Evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, and 8 wekk programme to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke.
- Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor.
- At the end of the programme the adolescents who had a 'buddy' were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a 'buddy'.

K - Social support can help young people resist social influence as part of intervention in the real world.
Limitation of social support as an explanation for resistance to social influence: dispositional explanation 
P - Social support as a situational explanation for resistance to social influence is not the only explanation for resistance.

E - Some people disobey or refuse to conform without there being any form or social support or allies.
- An alternative view is that resistance to social influence is something dispositional.
- I.e. an internal personality characteristic that means some people are more confident in disobeying or refusing to conform.

K - Resistance to social influence is complex.
- There is more than one aspect that affects resistance.
- Social support may aid resistance, but theres a dispositional aspect that determines it overall.
Strength of LOC as an explanation for reistance to social influence: Research support 
P - Research evidence.
- Supports the link between LOC and resistance to obedience.

E - Holland.
- Repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants had internal LOC or external LOC.
- He found 37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level.
- Whereas, 23% of extrenals didnt continue to highest shock level.
- Internals showed greater resistance to authority in a Milgram-type situation.

K - Resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases validity of LOC as an explanation for disobedience.
Limitation of LOC as an explanation for resistance to social influence: Contradictory reseach 
P - Contradictory research.
- Challenges the link between LOC and resistance.

E - Twenge et al.
- Analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40 year period.
- The data showed that , over this time span, people became more resistant to obedience, but also more external.
- If resistance is linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal.

K - Locus of control is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
Strength of research into minority influence: research support for consistency 
P - Research support.
- Evidence demonstrating importance of consistency.

E - Moscovici et al.
- Blue/green slide study showed that a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views of other people than an inconsistent opinion.
- Wood et al.
- Carried out meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential.

K - Presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority trying to influence a majority.
Strength of research into minority influence: research support for deeper processing. 
P - Research support.
- Evidence showing that a change in the minority's position does involve deeper processing of the minorities ideas.

E - Martin et al.
- Presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measure participants' agreement.
- One group of participants then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while another group heard the a majority group agree with it.
- Participants were finally exposed to a conflicting view and attitudes were measured again.
- People were less willing to change their opinions if they has listened to a minority group than if they had listened to a majority group.

K - The minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
- Supporting the central argument of how minority influence works.
Limitation of research into minority influence: artificial tasks 
P - Tasks involved are often very artificial.

E - Moscovici et al.'s task of identifying the colour of a slide.
- Research is therefore far removed from how minorities attempt to change the behaviour of majorities in real life.
- In cases such as jury decision making and political campaigning, the outcomes are vastly more important.

K - Findings of minority influence are licking in external validity.
- Limited in what they can tell us about how minority influence works in real world social situations.
Strength of the role of social influence processes in social change: research support for normative influences 
P - Research support.
-

E - Nolan et al.
- Aimed to see if they could change peoples energy use habits.
- The researchers hung messages on the front doors of houses in San Diego, California every week for a month.
- The key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage.
- As a control, some residents had a different message that asked them to save energy but made no reference to other people's behaviour.
- There were significant decreases in energy uses in the first group compared to the control group.

A - However...
- Some studied show that people's behaviour is not always changed through exposing them to social norms.
- Foxcroft et al.
- Reviewed social norms intervention.
- It included 70 studied where the social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use.
- They found only a small reduction in drinking quantity and no effect on drinking frequency.

K - Conformity (majority influence) can lead to social change through normative social influence but it does not always produce long-term social change.
Strength of the role of social influence processes in social change: minority influence explains social change 
P - Psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change.

E - Nemeth.
- Claims social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire.
- When people consider minority arguments, they engage in divergent thinking.
- This type of thinking is broad rather than narrow, in whcih the thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options.
- Nemeth argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues.

K - Dissenting minorities are valuable.
- They stimulate new ideas and open minds in a way majorities cannot.
Limitation of the role of social influence processes in social change: role of deeper processing 
P - Deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change.

E - Some people are supposedly converted because they think more deeply about the minority's views.
- Mackie disagrees and presents evidence evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not share their views.
- This is because we like to believe that other people share our views and think the same way as us.
- When we find that a majority believes something different, then we are forces to think long and hard about their arguments and reasoning.

K - Central element of minority influence has been challenged.
- This casts doubt on its validity as an explanation of social change.