Evaluations of general knowledge

positive evaluation of NSI

• evidence supports it as an explanation for conformity: Asch had participants saying they conformed because they felt self-conscious, conformity fell to 12.5% when answers were written down, shows conformity is due to desire to not be rejected by the group

  
  

negative evaluation of NSI

• unclear whether it is NSI or ISI in research studies e.g. Asch: conformity decreased with dissenter- could be NSI (provided social support) or ISI (provided other opinion), hard to separate- both probably operate in real-world

• individual differences: nAffiliators experience more NSI and are more likely to conform

positive evaluation of ISI

• research support e.g. Lucas et al. higher conformity when maths questions were hard, conformed because they thought others were right, less self-confident- results are what ISI would predict

• can work with NSI as concepts to explain conformity in research and real-world e.g. conforming with a unanimous group because you want to fit in but also might think they must be right

negative evaluation of ISI

• can be unclear whether it is ISI or NSI affecting conformity e.g. Asch- conformity reduced with dissenter, may be reducing NSI (social support) or ISI (alternative source of social information), hard to separate because often work together

positive evaluation of agentic state as an explanation for obedience

• Milgram’s study supports it: often asked question was ‘Who is responsible?’, when examiner took responsibility, participants continued

negative evaluation of agentic state as an explanation for obedience

• agentic shift doesn’t explain many findings about obedience e.g. Rank and Jacobson found 16 out of 18 hospital nurses ignored the doctor who told them to give a patient an excessive drug dose- remained in autonomous state

• Mandel highlighted German soldiers of Battalion 101 in WW2 shot civilians in Poland without direct orders to do so (they were allowed a different duty if they wanted)- remained in autonomous state

positive evaluation of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience

• useful account of cultural differences in obedience e.g. 16% of Australian female participants went up to 450V in a Milgram-style study but 85% of German participants, shows in different cultures authority is differently treated, and children are brought up to perceive authority figures differently

• supported by the My Lai massacre in Vietnam- commanding officers are high in a legitimate hierarchy and have a greater power to punish than doctors

negative evaluation of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience

• cannot explain instances of disobedience in an accepted hierarchy e.g. Rank and Jacobson’s study on nurses disobeying doctors, some people may just be less obedient than others

positive evaluation of dispositional explanation for obedience

• support from Elms and Milgram-interviewed sample of participants who had been obedient, scored significantly higher on F scale than control group, findings agree with Adorno’s conclusion that obedient people have similar characteristics to an authoritarian personality

negative evaluation of dispositional explanation for obedience

• analysis into the F-scale showed obedient participants from Milgram had a few characteristics different to authoritarians e.g. didn’t glorify fathers, didn’t experience childhood punishment, therefore authoritarianism not good at predicting obedience

• cannot explain obedience for majority of population, not everyone will have same personality who obey e.g. the Nazis, alternative explanation-social identity theory

• F-scale political bias, Adorno’s theory does not account for authority across whole political spectrum

F-scale political bias evaluation

claims to only show a tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology, Christie and Jahoda argued extreme right and extreme left wing ideologies aren’t too far apart

positive evaluation of minority influence

• consistency supported by Moscovici and Wood et al. blue and green slides- group of 6 viewed 36 blue slides, 2 confederates consistently said green, participants conformed on 8.42% of trials, second group had 2 confederates say green 24 times, agreement fell to 1.25, control group had no confederates, wrong answer only 0.25% of trials

• meta-analysis of similar studies finding consistency most-influential

• flexibility supported by Nemeth

negative evaluation of minority influence

• research often have clear distinctions between majority and minority- low external validity, in real world majorities have power and status

• artificial tasks used, little consequences to changing, minorities aren’t fighting for something drastically different or important, dangerous to be minority in real life

• Moscovici’s findings are low anyway (8.42%) so minority influence does not make much different

  • writing down answers increased percentages agreeing with minority, suggests view expressed by people in public is not complete

positive evaluation of social support as a type of resistance to social influence

• Albrecht et al. evaluated a programme to help pregnant teens to resist peer pressure to smoke, those partnered with a buddy significantly less likely to smoke than those without a buddy- resisting conformity

• Garnson et al. participants asked to help with a smear campaign run by an oil company, allowed to discuss in a group, 88% rebelled against orders- resisting obedience

• Allen and Levine did an Asch style study, 64% refused to conform with dissenter present who had good eyesight, 3% when no dissenter, 36% when dissenter had poor eyesight- support needs to be reliable

positive evaluation of locus of control as a type of resistance to social influence

• Holland repeated Milgram’s baseline study and measured who were internals and who were externals, 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level, 23% of externals didn’t continue

negative evaluation of locus of control as a type of resistance to social influence

• Twenge et al. analysed data from American locus of control studies from over a 40 year period, showed people became more resistant to obedience but also more external- locus of control not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence

• LOC only affects behaviour in new situations, if you have conformed or obeyed in a specific situation in the past it is likely you will again no matter internal or external

positive evaluation of conformity causing social change

• Nolan et al. hung messages on doors in California every day for a month, some were asked to reduce their energy usage-control, others asked to reduce but told most residents were already doing it, significant decrease in second group’s energy usage- NSI

negative evaluation of conformity causing social change

• behaviour not always changed by exposing people to social norms

• Foxcroft et al. reviewed social norms interventions including 70 studies where social norms approach was used to reduce student alcohol use, only small reduction in drinking quantity, no effect on frequency

positive evaluation of minority causing social change

• psychologists can explain it e.g. Nemeth claims social change is due to a type of thinking minorities inspire- engaging with divergent thinking (broad), thinker actively searches for information and weighs up more options, leads to better decision making and more creative solutions to social issues