Social influence evaluations

Asch (1951)

P: Conformity is unstable and not fixed. Ev: Smith et al - avg. conformity rates were 25% in individualistic cultures and 37% in collectivist. Ex: Conformity differs between cultures, so Asch’s study isn’t generalisable. L: lacks popn validity.

P: Lacks eco validity. Ev: task was trivial and ppts had to make decisions around strangers Ex: no consequences so ppts wouldn’t invest in the task. L: lacks mundane realism and doesn’t reflect real life.

Explanations for conformity

P: supporting ev. Ev: Perkins et al - children who were told their peers didn’t smoke were less likely to start themselves. Ex: there is a relationship between normative beliefs and the likelihood of smoking - people change their beh to fit in. L: gives validity.

P: Lab based support. Ev: Asch evidenced NSI and ISI. Ex: NSI - the original ppts said they conformed to avoid rejection. ISI - in the harder task the situation was ambiguous so they conformed to be right. L: gives credibility. HOWEVER= E: Asch’s ppts conformed in a third of trials. L: suggests that not everyone responds to NSI/ISI

Milgram

P: Demand characteristics. Ev: Perry et al - 50% of ppts expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the electric shocks. Ex: They may have gone to 450v because they didn’t think it was real. L: reduces internal validity.

P: Lacks external validity. Ev: In WW2, reserve police battalion 101 - executed Jews regardless of proximity. Ex: Milgram stresses the importance of proximity but it doesn’t reflect real life. L: lacks eco validity. HOWEVER= E: Hofling - 21/22 nurses followed telephone orders telling them to deliver an unfamiliar drug (against rules). L: Milgram’s theory of obedience can be seen IRL.

Explanations for obedience (LoA and agentic state)

LoA: P: Supporting evidence. Ev: Turnow - A study of aircraft accidents - over half involved excessive dependence on the captain as crew members did not question them because they assumed the captain was correct. Ex: The captain was considered a legitimate authority, higher on the social hierarchy. L: gives eco validity.

Agentic state - WW2 reserve police battalion 101.

The Authoritarian Personality

P: Supporting evidence. Ev: Elms & Milgram - ppts in Milgram’s study who were highly obedient were significantly more authoritarian. Ex: suggests that people with authoritarian traits are more likely to obey authority figures. L: shows a correlation so gives validity (COUNTER: only to an extent)

P: Methodological issues with the F-scale. Ev: All terms are worded in the same direction and strongly agree; always mean the same ‘thing’. Ex: Is the test measuring AP or the tendency to agree to every question? L: The main measurement for AP is flawed - reduces strengths.

Research into Minority influence

Moscovici - P: Gender bias. Ev: used a sample on 172 female ppts from America. Ex: unable to generalise results to male ppts as we cannot assume they will respond the same. Research actually suggests that women are more likely to conform. L: reduces generalisability as it is gynocentric.

P: lacks eco validity. Ev: lab experiment - highly controlled and ppts know they are being observed. Also ppts put into random groups with strangers. Ex: ppts wont be fully engaged and passionate unlike real minority groups so beh wont be reflective of real life. L: Results are less useful.

Resisting social control and the theory of LOC

P: Supporting ev. Ev: Shute (1975) - Exposed undergraduates to peers who expressed liberal attitudes to drug taking. Ppts with an internal LOC conformed less. Ex: proves the idea that people with an internal LOC think more independently and can resist SI. L: Gives external validity.

P: Opposing ev. Ev: Twenge et al. (1967) - Meta analysis of studies over 40 years = people have become more external in their LOC but also more resistant to obedience. Ex: people with external LOC should be less resistant to obedience. L: Reduces usefulness of the LOC theory.