social influence names

Question 1

Asch 1951

Answer 1

36.8% out of 123 on 12 critical trials conformed
75% at least once
Reduced to 5.5% when unanimous position was broken

Question 2

Perrin and Spencer

Answer 2

Against Asch - only 1/396 trials, engineering students

Question 3

Lucas et al

Answer 3

Support - easy, hard maths problems, conformed more on hard

Question 4

Deutsch and Gerard 1955

Answer 4

ISI and NSI

Question 5

Haney, Banks and Zimbardo 1973

Answer 5

Stanford Prison Experiment to investigate siutational factors

Question 6

Banuazizi and Mohavedi

Answer 6

Contradictory - ‘play acting’, Cool Hand Luke

Question 7

Reicher and Haslan 2006

Answer 7

Replication of SPE broadcast on BBC TV
Opposite: prisoners disobedient and took control of the guards who struggled to take control

Question 8

Milgram 1963

Answer 8

100% reached 300V (‘intense shock’)
65% reached 450V (‘danger - severe shock)
10% when joined by a confederate (social support)

Question 9

Gina Perry 2013

Answer 9

Looked at all the tape recordings
Many had doubts about the truth
70% believed it was true so less demand characteristics

Question 10

Sheridan and King

Answer 10

Replaced human confederate with puppy
Support: 77% obeyed, reduced demand characteristic

Question 11

Bickaman

Answer 11

obedience in a natural setting: uniform
89% in police uniform
57% in milkman
35% in plain clothes

Question 12

Hoffling et al

Answer 12

Obedience in a natural setting: legitimate authority
95% (21 out of 22) complied with Dr Smith and began administration of medication

Question 13

Rank and Jacobson

Answer 13

Not replicated results as Hofling, very low obedience rates. However, not exactly the same variables, for example, they were with others

Question 14

Adorno et al 1950

Answer 14

Early childhood experiences led to a psychological personality disorder (due to repressed feelings), Authoritarian personality
Those who scored high on the F scale identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’ - strong positive correlation between authoritarian personality and prejudice

Question 15

Milgram and Elms

Answer 15

Support: 20 original Ps scored significantly higher on the F-scale scores
However, many were different on closer inspection

Question 16

Christie and Jahoda

Answer 16

Against: F-scale only measures extreme right-wing ideology: political bias

Question 17

Greenstein

Answer 17

‘a comedy of methodological errors’
- Acquiescence bias
- Social desirability bias
Interviewer bias

Question 18

Allen and Levine 1971

Answer 18

Independence increased with one supporter in an Asch-type study, even if they wore thick glasses and said they had problems with their vision
64% resisted when had good eyesight
36% resisted when had bad eyesight

Question 19

Gamson et al

Answer 19

Ps had to produce evidence to help an oil company. They were in groups - social support
88% rebelled

Question 20

Albrecht et al

Answer 20

Teen Fresh Start USA
Those with a buddy in the programme were significantly less likely to smoke than those without - practical applications

Question 21

Rotter 1966

Answer 21

Locus of control
Those with more internal LOC more likely to resist pressure
However also has little influence in familiar situations because turn to experience instead: limited range of situations

Question 22

Holland

Answer 22

Repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether Ps were internals or externals
Support - 15% more internals continued that externals to the highest shock levels

Question 23

Twenge et al

Answer 23

Meta-analysis of American obedience studies over a 40 year period
Against - People have become more resistant to obedience but also more external

Question 24

Moscovici

Answer 24

blue-green slides
Consistent minority had a greater effect on Ps than the inconsistent minority

Question 25

Nemeth

Answer 25

Flexibility

Question 26

Diane Mackie

Answer 26

Majority influence causes more deeper processing than minority if we disagree with majority

Question 27

Bashir et al

Answer 27

stereotyping undesirable
‘tree huggers’