social influencce AO3

Types and explanations of conformity strength- research support for NSI

Asch’s ppt interviews said ppts were scared to be disapproved of. Also, in a variant where ppts could write their answers down, conformity dropped to 12.5%. This means that at least some conformity is due to desire to not be rejected by the group for disagreeing.

Types and explanations of conformity strength- research support for ISI

Lucas et al found ppts conformed more with harder questions, as they didn’t want to be wrong when they were unsure of the answers. This therefore shows that ISI and NSI are likely both processes that operate together in reak world conformity situations.

Types and explanations of conformity limitation- NSI doesn’t predict conformity in every case

nAffiliators are a personality type concerned with being liked by others. A study found nAffiliator students are more likely to conform. This means that NSI underlies conformity to some people more than others, therefore individual differences in conformity cannot be explained by one general theory.

Asch’s research limitation- task and situation were artificial

Ppts may have been reasoning to demand characteristics, also the task lacked mundane realism which essential meant that there was no reason for ppts to not conform. Therefore the findings don’t generalise to real like situations, especially where consequences of conformity are important.

Asch’s research limitation- ppts were 123 American, white men

Research suggests women may be more conformist, also the US is an individualist culture and studies in collectivist cultures show higher conformity rates. Therefore Asch’s findings tell us little about conformity in women and people from other cultures- difficult to generalise to wider society.

Asch’s research strength- research support for the effects of task difficulty

Lucas et al’s maths problem study found that ppts conformed more when the maths problems were harder. This how’s that Asch’s was correct in assuming task difficulty was a variable affecting conformity- increases validity of this theory.

Milgram’s obedience study strength- research support from a French documentary about reality TV

Ppts in the ‘game show’ were paid to give fake electric shocks to other ppts. 80% of ppts delivered the maximum voltage and other behaviours notices were the same as Milgrams. Therefore this supports the original findings about obedience to authors and demonstrates the validity of the findings.

Milgram’s obedience study limitation- procedure may not have tested what was intended

Milgram said 75% of ppts thought the shocks were genuine, but Orne and Holland said the study lacked mundane realism as therefore ppts were responding to demand characteristics. Perry confirmed only ½ of the ppts thought that the shocks were real. Therefore suggests ppts were responding to demand characteristics and just trying to fulfil the aims of the study.

Milgram’s obedience study limitation- conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified

Haslam et al found that ppts obey when the first 3 prods were used, but ones with the 4th prod disobeyed. Ppts obeyed when they identified with the aims of the research. Therefore social identity theory may be a more valid interepredtion, Milgram’s said that identifying with science was the reason for obedience.

Milgram’s situational variables strength- research support for uniform

Bickman’s field experiment found people were x2 more likely to obey the security guard in uniform vs in a shirt and tie. This supports the view that uniform has an effect on obedience, increasing the validly.

Milgram’s situational variables strength- findings replicated in other cultures

Researchers found in a realistic interview study that 90% of Dutch ppts obeyed. But when the person giving orders was absent, obedience dropped dramatically. This suggests Milgram’s findings aren’t just limited to American men and are valid across cultures.

Milgram’s situational variables limitation- ppts may have been aware the procedure was faked

Orne and Holland suggested this about his baseline procedure, and it is even more likely in the variations (more manipulation) e.g. in the member of the public variant. Therefore it is unclear is the findings aren’t due to obedience or response to demand characteristics.

Dispositional explanations of obedience strength- evidence from Milgram supports the AP

Elms and Milgram got some ppts from the obedience study to do the F-scale and found that ppts who scored higher on the F-scale were the 20 obedient and the ones who scored low on the F-scale were the 20 not obedient. This supports Adorno et al’s view that obedient people may show similar characteristics to people with an AP- increases validity.

Dispositional explanations of obedience limitation- authoritarianism cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of the country’s population

In pre war Germany, millions displayed antisemitic behaviour as they listened to Hitler. They can’t all have had an AP, so a more likely idea is social identity theory. Therefore Adorno’s theory is limited because another explanation is more realistic and comprehensive.

Dispositional explanations of obedience limitation- F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right wing ideology

Researchers argue the f-scale is a politically bias interpretation of the AP, as for example there can be an extreme left wing type of authoritarianism in Russia or China. Therefore Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience across the whole political spectrum.

Situational explanations of obedience strength- research support from Milgram for the role of the agentic state in obedience

When the experimenter said ‘I am responsible’ if the learner is harmed, ppts had no objections and carried on with the procedure. Therefore once ppts perceived they were no longer responsible for their actions and an agent of the experimenter, they were willing to continue. Increases the validity of the theory.

Situational explanations of obedience weakness- agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience

Rank and Jacobson found that 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to give an overdose of a drug to a patient. They remained autonomous against the authority figure. Therefore at best the agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience.

Situational explanations of obedience strength- useful account of cultural differences in obedience

Studies show that 16% of Australian women went up to 450V, whilst 85% of German women went up to 450V. This demonstrates how in some cultures, authority is more likely accepted as legitimate, and it is more accepted to demand obedience. This reflects societal structures and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

Resistance to social influence (LOC) strength- research support linking LOC and resistance to obedience

Holland repeated Milgram’s study and measured if ppts had internal or external LOCs. 37% of internals didn’t reach the highest level, and 23% didn’t continue. Therefore this demonstrates that there is a link between resistance and LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation for disobedience.

Resistance to social influence (LOC) limitation- research challenges the link between LOC and resistance to social influence

Data showed that, over a time span, people became more resistant to obedience, but also more external. This suggests that LOC isn’t a valid explanation of how people resist social influence, as it is not completely accurate/comprehensive.

Resistance to social influence (LOC) limitation- limited role of the LOC

Rotter found that LOC isn’t the most important factor in determining whether someone resists social influence, he found that a persons LOC only affects their behaviour in new situations. Therefore if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past, the chances are you will do so in the situation regardless of having an internal/external LOC.

Resistance to social influence (social support)- research support for positive effects of social support

A study into peer pressure in smoking found that adolescents who had a buddy were less likely to smoke than those who didn’t have a buddy. This shows that social support can help young people resist social influence as a part of intervention.

Resistance to social influence (social support) strength- research support for the role of dissenting peers

Gamson et al found that higher levels of resistance in his study than Milgram did. 88% rebelled against their orders. This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of the authority figure.

Resistance to social influence (social support) limitation- social support can help individuals resist the influence of a group

When a dissenter had good eyesight, less ppts conformed. When there was no dissenter resistance was only 3%. This increases the validity of the theory.

HOWEVER, the study also showed that when a dissenter had obviously poor eyesight, resistance dropped to 36%.

Minority influence strength- research support for the importance of consistency

Moscovici’s blue/green slide study showed that a consistent majority has a greater effect on changing each others views. Also, a meta analysis of almost 100 studies also found this. This means that presenting a consistent view is a minimum requirement for a minority influencing a majority.

Minority influence limitation- tasks involved are often artificial

(Including Moscovici’s study) research is far removed from how minorities attempt to change majority behaviour in real life. In juries and political campaigning, outcomes are more important. Therefore the findings of minority influence studies are lacking external validity and are limited about what they can tell us about minority influence in the real world.

Minority influence strength- evidence shows that a change in minority position incited deeper processing of the minorities idea

Martin et al’s study about support for viewpoints found that people were less willing to change opinions if they listened to a minority group than if they listened to a majority group. Therefore the minority message had been more depot processed, supporting the central ideal of minority influence- increasing the validity of the theory.