PEEL paragraphs

• Conformity: Types and Explanations - Research support for NSI


  P: One strength of NSI is that evidence supports it as an explanation of conformity.

  E: Asch (1951) interviewed participants, some said they conformed because they felt self-conscious giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval. When participants wrote their answers down, conformity fell to 12.5%.

  E: This is because giving answers privately meant there was no normative group pressure.

  L: This shows that at least some conformity is due to a desire not to be rejected by the group disagreeing with them.
• Conformity: Types and Explanations - Research support for ISI

  P: Another strength is that there is research evidence to support ISI from the study by Lucas et al (2006).

  E: Lucas et al found that participants conformed more often to incorrect answers they were given when the maths problems were difficult. This is because when the problems were easy the participants 'knew their own minds' but when the problems were hard the situation became ambiguous.

  E: The participants did not want to be wrong, so they relied on the answers they were given.

  L: This shows that ISI is a valid explanation of conformity because the results are what ISI would predict.

  H: It is often unclear whether it is NSI or ISI at work in research studies. Asch (1955) found that conformity is reduced when there is one other dissenting participant. The dissenter may reduce the power of NSI or they may reduce the power of ISI. Both interpretations are possible. Therefore, it is hard to separate ISI and NSI and both processes probably operate together in most real-world conformity situations.
• Conformity: Types and Explanations - Individual differences in NSI

  P: One limitation is that NSI does not predict conformity in every case.

  E: McGhee and Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform.

  E: Some people are greatly concerned with being liked by others. Such people are called nAffiliators - they have a strong need for affiliation.

  L: This shows that NSI underlies conformity for some people more than it does for others. There are individual differences in conformity that cannot be fully explained by one general theory of situational pressures.
• Conformity to social roles - Control

  P: One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.

  E: For example of this was the selection of participants.

  E: Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.

  L: This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about influence of roles on conformity.
• Conformity to social roles - Lack of realism


  P: One limitation of the SPE is that it did not have the realism of a true prison.

  E: Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) argued the participants were merely play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role. Participants performances were based on their stereotypes of how prisoners and guards are supposed to behave.

  E: This would also explain why the prisoners rioted - they thought that was what real prisoners did.

  L: This suggests that the findings of the SPE tell us little about conformity to social roles in actual prisons.

  H: McDermott (2019) argues that the participants did behave as if the participants did behave as if the prison was real to them. 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life. Amongst themselves, they discussed how it was impossible to leave the SPE before their 'sentences' were over. 'Prisoner 416' later explained how he believed the prison was a real one, but run by psychologists rather than the government. This suggests that the SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison, giving the study a high degree of internal validity.
• Conformity to social roles - Exaggerates the power of roles


  P: Another limitation is that Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour.

  E: 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.

  E: Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal one.

  L: This suggest that Zimbardo overstated his view that SPE participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence dispositional factors.
• Obedience: Research Support


  P: One strength is that Milgram's findings were replicated in a French documentary that was made about reality TV.

  E: Beauvois et al 2012. Participants were made to give fake electric shocks to other participants. 80% delivered max shock of 460 volts.

  E: Behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram's participants nervous laughter, nail-biting etc.

  L: Supports Milgram's original findings about obedience to authority, and demonstrates that the findings were not just due to special circumstances
• Obedience: Low internal validity

  P: One limitation is that Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test.

  E: Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up, so they were 'play-acting'.Perry (2013) listened to the tapes from Milgram's experiment and confirmed this, only half of them believed the shocks were real.

  E: 2/3 of these participants were disobedient.

  L: Suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, trying to fulfil the aim of the study.

  H: Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram. Participants gave shocks to a puppy. Despite distress of the puppy 54% men and 100% women gave fatal shock. This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.
• Obedience: Alternative interpretation of findings

  P: Another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.

  E: Haslam et al (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods, but every participant who was given the fourth prod disobeyed.

  E: According to social identity theory, participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of research. When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure they refused.

  L: This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science' is a reason for obedience.