Social Influence

• What is a limitation for Milgram's study

  • Has low internal validity
  • Orne and Holland 1968 stated that participants did not really believe that the electric shocks were real
  • Therefore, they only obliged to distribute shocks as it helped the study
  • As a result, the study was not really testing obedience
• What is one strength of Milgram's study

  • It has high internal validity
  • Sheriden and King in 1972 did a replica study with puppies and found 54% of males and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock
• What is another limitation of Milgram's study

  • The study presents ethical issues
  • The participants were decieved and did not have the right to withdraw
  • They believed that they were providing realistic shocks when they were actually fake, and when trying to leave, they were told that it was imperative to carry on with the study
• What is another strength of Milgram's study

  • It has good external validity despite being conducted in a lab
  • It focuses and highlights the relationship between the authority figure and the participant
  • Hofling in 1966 found that 21 out of 22 doctors obeyed to unjustified demands
  • Therefore, Milgram's study lab study can be generalised
• What is one strength of Normative Social Influence

  • There is research support for NSI
  • Some participants were interviewed and said they conformed because they were self-conscious of giving the wrong answer
  • When answers were written down, conformity fell by 12.5%
  • Therefore, some conformity is due to a desire to not be rejected
• What is a strength for Informational Social Influence

  • There is research support for ISI
  • Lucas in 2006 conducted a study similars to Asch were they had to answer maths questions
  • He found that participants gave wrong answers as the questions were hard, they relied on the answers they were given
  • Therefore, ISI is a valid explanation for conformity
• What is one limitation of Normative Social Influence?

  • NSI does not predict conformity in every case
  • Some people who are really concerned about being liked by others are known as NAffiliators
  • McGhee and Teevan found NAffiliators were more likely to conform
  • Therefore, NSI underlines individual differences and conformity cannot be explained by one general theory
• What is one strength of Zimbardo's study

  • Zimbardo's study has good internal validity
  • Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables such as random allocation of participants and picking emotionally stable participants
  • As a result, it ruled out individual personality differences
  • Therefore, we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity
• What is one limitation of Zimbardo's study

  • There is a lack of realism
  • Mohavedi argued that participants were play acting instead of conforming to social roles
  • One of the guards claimed he based his role on a brutal character from the film 'Cool Hand Luke'
  • As a result, SPE tells us very little about conformity to social roles
• One strength of Locus of Control

  • The research to support the link between LOC and resistance to obedience
  • Holland repeated Milgram's study
  • 37% of internals did not continue at the highest shock level, while 23% of externals did not continue
  • Therefore, it increases the validity of internal LOC as an explanation for disobedience
• What is one limitation of Locus of Control?

  • There is research to contradict the link between internal LOC and resistance
  • Twenge analysed data between 1960 to 2002 of locus of control studies
  • People became more resistant to obedience but more external, which is surprising because normally internal LOC is associated with resistance
  • Therefore, the validity is challenged
• One strength of Social Support?

  • There is research of social support decreasing conformity levels
  • Allen and Levine conducted an-Asch like study where there was a dissenter
  • Conformity fell by 64% with dissenter and 3% without
  • Therefore, social support is a good source of decreasing conformity levels
• One strength of the Authoritarian Personality?

  • Research support by Milgram and Elms
  • They conducted the F Scale with 20 obedient pariticpants (went to 450 volts) and 20 disobedient participants
  • Those who scored highest were the obedient participants
  • This supports Adorno's view that obedient people are more likely to have the AP trait
• One limitation of Authoritarian Personality

  • The F-Scale is methodically flawed
  • Greenstein claimed that the F-Scale had acquiescence bias
  • Therefore, the questions were all worded in the same direction
  • Therefore, it would give the desired outcome for Adorno
• Another limitation of the AP

  • It is politically biased
  • Jahoda claims that it only takes in right wing ideologies, despite right and left wing having similar concepts
  • They both emphasise the complete obedience to political authority
  • Therefore, Adorno's theory is not comprehensive enough to explain obedience over the whole political spectrum
• Another limitation of the AP

  • The AP has limited explanation
  • It cannot explain the obedient behaviour of the majority of a population
  • Pre-War, many Germans displayed obedience and Anti-Semitic views, despite all differing from personalities; it would be unlikely that they all possessed AP
  • Therefore, Adorno's theory is limited as an alternative explanation is more realisitic
• One strength of minority influence

  • Supporting evidence to highlight the importance of consistency
  • Moscovi's study shows the importance of consistent views having more effect than inconsistent
  • Wood carried out over 100 meta analysis and came to the same conclusion
  • Therefore, consistency is the minimum requirement for a minority to influence a majority
• One limitation of minority influence

  • Moscovici's study can be seen as artificial, just like Asch's study
  • Research into stating whether a square is blue or green cannot be generalised into real world situation eg political campaigning or situations of life and death
  • Therefore, these results will lack in ecological validity and gives us limited knowledge of how minority influence is seen in real world applications