Evaluations paper 1 Flashcards
(103 cards)
Asch- Conformity- Artificial tasks and situations
One limitation of Asch’s research is that the tasks and situation were artificial, which may have led to demand characteristics. Participants were aware they were part of an experiment, which could have influenced their behavior, as they might have guessed the purpose of the study and altered their responses to fit what they thought the researcher expected. Susan Fiske pointed out that the groups in Asch’s study did not reflect real-life social dynamics, as the participants were strangers to each other, and the tasks (such as judging line lengths) were not meaningful in everyday life. As a result, the findings may not generalize to real-world situations, where social influence often operates in more complex and natural contexts. This suggests that while Asch’s study provides insight into conformity in controlled settings, its ecological validity is limited.
Limited application-Asch-Conformity
Here’s an improved version of your evaluation point:
A limitation of Asch’s study is that it predominantly involved American men, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Other research suggests that women may be more likely to conform than men, as they may place greater value on group harmony and social relationships. Additionally, cultural factors may influence conformity, with collectivist cultures, which emphasize group cohesion and interdependence, potentially leading to higher conformity rates compared to individualistic cultures, like the U.S. where personal autonomy is more highly valued. This suggests that Asch’s findings may not apply universally and that conformity could vary across both gender and cultural contexts, highlighting the need for further research in diverse settings to understand the broader applicability of conformity theories.
ASCH- conformity
Research supports the idea that task difficulty can influence conformity, as demonstrated by Todd Lucas’s study on math problems. Lucas found that participants were more likely to conform when the math problems were difficult, suggesting that uncertainty or lack of confidence in one’s own abilities can increase susceptibility to social influence. However, the situation is more complex than just task difficulty. Conformity in these situations may also involve factors such as the desire to avoid being wrong, the influence of group dynamics, and individual differences in personality. Therefore, while task difficulty is an important factor, it interacts with other elements like self-esteem and social pressure, making the relationship between task difficulty and conformity multifaceted.
Types of conformity- social influence- research support for NSI
1 to get to conform. 2 to get to 12.5%. 3 to confomroty,
Asch found that participants felt self-conscious when responding publicly in front of others, which may have influenced their tendency to conform. When the responses were written down instead of given aloud, conformity dropped significantly to just 12.5%. This suggests that the pressure of being observed by others plays a significant role in increasing conformity, as participants may have been more likely to express their true opinions when they were not under direct scrutiny. This highlights the impact of social context on conformity, demonstrating that the fear of judgment or being judged negatively can drive people to conform, while anonymity reduces the influence of such pressures.
Types of conformity- social influence- support for ISI
Todd Lucas found that individuals were more likely to conform when the task, such as a difficult math problem, was challenging, as they did not want to appear wrong in front of others. This suggests that the desire to avoid being incorrect can drive conformity, especially when individuals feel uncertain about their own knowledge. However, it’s important to consider that conformity in such situations could be a result of both the difficulty of the task and the social pressure from others. Therefore, the tendency to conform might be a combination of personal insecurities (fear of being wrong) and the influence of group dynamics, highlighting the complex interaction between individual factors and external pressures in influencing behavior.
Types of conformity- Social influence- Individual differences
N-affiliators, individuals who have a high need for affiliation (the desire to form close, social relationships), are more likely to conform in group settings. Research suggests that people with a strong need for approval and social connection are more susceptible to social influence, as they may prioritize acceptance within a group over maintaining personal beliefs or behaviors. This suggests that conformity may not solely be driven by situational factors or social roles but can also be influenced by individual differences, such as personality traits. Therefore, N-affiliators may be more likely to conform in situations where group dynamics or social pressure are prominent, highlighting the interaction between personal characteristics and external influences in shaping behavior.
Zimbardo- social influence - Control
Zimbardo had a significant degree of control over the experimental environment, which allowed him to manipulate variables such as the roles of guards and prisoners and the conditions of the simulated prison. This control enhances the internal validity of the study, as it ensured that the participants’ behaviors were primarily influenced by the situational factors rather than extraneous variables. However, the level of control also raises ethical concerns, particularly regarding Zimbardo’s failure to intervene when the participants’ well-being was compromised. While the controlled setting strengthens the study’s ability to demonstrate the power of situational factors, it also limits the generalizability of the findings to real-life prison settings, where individuals have more autonomy and less controlled circumstances.
Zimbardo- social influence- lack of realism
Banuazizi and Movahedi argued that Zimbardo’s prison experiment lacked the realism of a true prison, suggesting that participants were play-acting rather than genuinely conforming to the roles. They pointed out that the behaviors exhibited by the guards and prisoners were often stereotypical, mimicking portrayals of prison life seen in movies and media. This raises doubts about the ecological validity of the study, as the behaviors observed may reflect participants’ preconceived notions about what it means to be a guard or a prisoner, rather than an authentic response to the social roles. As a result, the findings may tell us little about real-world conformity and instead reflect the influence of cultural stereotypes.
Zimbardo- social influence- lack of realism counterpoint
McDermott argues that participants in Zimbardo’s prison experiment did behave as though the prison environment was real, as evidenced by their conversations about prison life. This suggests that the participants may have internalized their roles and the setting to a greater extent than Zimbardo initially acknowledged. It supports the idea that the participants’ behaviors were influenced by the psychological impact of the situation, rather than just acting out roles in a simulated environment. However, this argument could be seen as reinforcing the experimental design’s validity, while also raising questions about the extent to which the situation shaped behavior compared to individual predispositions.
Zimbardo- Social influence- exaggerates the power of social roles
Zimbardo may have exaggerated the power of social roles in his prison experiment, as only one third of the guards acted brutally, while another third behaved fairly, and the remaining guards even attempted to help the prisoners. This variation in behavior suggests that the influence of social roles may not be as deterministic as Zimbardo proposed. It challenges the idea that people will inevitably adopt aggressive or oppressive behaviors simply because of assigned roles, highlighting the importance of individual differences and situational factors in shaping behavior.
Milgrims research- social influence- research support
Milgram’s research was replicated in a French documentary, Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death), where participants were paid to administer fake electric shocks to confederates. In this study, 80% of participants delivered shocks up to 460 volts to an unconscious man, and their behavior closely mirrored that of participants in Milgram’s original study. This replication provides strong support for Milgram’s findings, demonstrating the consistency of obedience under similar experimental conditions. However, it is important to consider the ethical implications, as participants may have been influenced by the artificial environment of a television show, potentially reducing the generalizability of the findings to real-world situation
milgrim- social influence- low internal validity
n Milgram’s study, 75% of participants believed they were delivering real shocks, which raises concerns about the authenticity of their responses. Orne and Holland criticized the study, arguing that participants were merely play-acting because they suspected the shocks were not real. This issue is further supported by Perry’s findings, which confirm that some participants in Milgram’s experiment responded to demand characteristics, meaning they may have altered their behavior based on what they thought the experimenter wanted to see. These factors undermine the study’s internal validity, suggesting that the observed levels of obedience may have been influenced by the participants’ awareness of the experimental setting, rather than purely by obedience to authority.
Milgrim- social infleuce- counterpoint for low internal validity
Sheridan and King conducted a study similar to Milgram’s, where participants were asked to administer real shocks to a puppy. The results revealed that 54% of male participants and 100% of female participants administered what they believed to be harmful shocks to the animal. While this study supports Milgram’s findings on obedience, it also highlights potential gender differences in obedience. The fact that all women, but only 54% of men, continued to administer shocks suggests that gender may play a role in obedience, with women potentially being more susceptible to authority in this context. However, the ethical concerns of causing harm to an animal and the potential distress caused to participants must also be considered when evaluating the study’s validity and generalizability.
milgrim- social infleunce- alternative interpretation
Haslam’s research on obedience demonstrated that participants were willing to obey when given three verbal prompts, but on the fourth prompt, everyone disobeyed. This suggests that there may be a limit to how much individuals will comply with authority, especially when they no longer identify with the aims or perceive the instructions as legitimate. Haslam further found that those who continued to obey were more likely to identify with the goals of the experiment. This highlights the importance of identification and personal connection to the task in determining obedience, suggesting that obedience may not be as blind or automatic as previously thought. Instead, it may depend on an individual’s alignment with the authority figure’s objectives, raising questions about the role of personal values and beliefs in the obedience process.
situational variable- social influence- researh support
Bickman conducted a field experiment where participants were asked to follow requests made by individuals dressed in different outfits: a security guard, a milkman, and a man in a jacket and tie. The results showed that people were twice as likely to obey the security guard compared to the man in a jacket and tie. This suggests that the perceived authority and legitimacy of the individual, as conveyed through their uniform, played a significant role in influencing obedience. The experiment highlights how uniform and perceived authority can enhance obedience, supporting the idea that social cues, such as clothing, can signal authority and increase compliance. However, the study’s field setting also raises questions about the influence of situational factors, such as the location and context, which might have affected participants’ responses.
situational- variables- social influence
Raaj and Meeus conducted a study with a more realistic procedure, where Dutch participants were instructed to cause stress to another person during an interview by giving increasingly stressful orders. The results showed that 90% of participants obeyed the instructions. However, when the person giving the orders left the room, obedience dropped significantly. This suggests that the presence of an authority figure plays a crucial role in maintaining obedience, as participants were less likely to comply without the immediate presence of authority. The study’s realistic setting strengthens the external validity of the findings, as it mirrors real-world situations where authority figures can exert significant influence. However, the ethical concerns regarding the stress induced on participants also need to be considered when evaluating the study’s broader implications.
Situational variables - social influence- low internal validity
Orne and Holland criticized Milgram’s study, arguing that obedience was more likely due to the manipulation of variables, such as the experimental setup and the cues given by the authority figure. They suggested that participants might have worked out the true nature of the experiment and that their obedience could have been influenced by their awareness that they were part of a study. This raises concerns about the internal validity of Milgram’s research, as it is unclear whether the behavior observed was genuine obedience or if it was a result of participants’ suspicions and their desire to conform to what they thought the experimenter wanted. Therefore, while Milgram’s study offers valuable insights into obedience, the extent to which the results reflect real obedience or merely demand characteristics is uncertain.
Agentic state- social influence- researh support
In Milgram’s study, most participants resisted at some point during the experiment, indicating that they were uncomfortable with the task. When participants expressed concern and asked who would be responsible for the consequences of their actions, the experimenter responded by saying that they (the experimenter) would take responsibility. Despite their hesitation, the majority of participants continued to administer the shocks without further objection. This highlights the powerful role of perceived authority in driving obedience, as participants were more willing to follow orders when they believed that the responsibility for their actions lay with the authority figure. However, this also raises ethical concerns, as participants may have been coerced into continuing the experiment under the assumption that they were not personally accountable.
Agentic shift- social influence- limited explanation
Rank and Jacobson conducted a study where 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient, despite the order coming from an authority figure. This finding contrasts with Milgram’s research, as it shows that even in a medical setting, the nurses were able to resist obedience. Many of the nurses acted autonomously, choosing not to follow the unethical order, which suggests that individuals may not always blindly follow authority figures, especially when they feel the order is morally wrong or harmful. This highlights the importance of personal responsibility and ethical considerations in determining whether to obey authority. It also suggests that professional norms, training, and a sense of duty to the patient can override the influence of authority in some situations, providing insight into how obedience may be context-dependent.
Legitimacy of authority- social influence - cultural dfferences
Kilham and Mann found significant cultural differences in obedience in their replication of Milgram’s study. Only 16% of Australian women administered shocks up to 450 volts, while 85% of German participants did. This suggests that cultural factors may play a crucial role in determining the extent of obedience. The stark difference in obedience rates between the two countries highlights the potential influence of national culture on individuals’ willingness to follow authority. In particular, the higher obedience rate in Germany may reflect a cultural tendency toward deference to authority, while the lower rate in Australia could indicate a more individualistic or resistant cultural attitude. These findings suggest that obedience is not solely influenced by situational factors, but also by broader cultural norms and values.
Legitimacty- social influence- cannot explain all
Rank and Jacobson’s study, most of the nurses (16 out of 18) were disobedient, even though they were working in a hierarchical setting where authority figures, such as doctors, typically hold significant influence. This finding challenges the assumption that people will always obey authority figures in structured environments, such as hospitals. Despite the hierarchical nature of the setting, the nurses chose not to follow the doctor’s unethical order to administer an excessive drug dose. This suggests that factors such as personal responsibility, professional ethics, and moral judgment can override obedience to authority, highlighting the complexity of obedience in real-world contexts.
Dispositional- social influence-limited explanation
In pre-war Germany, millions of individuals displayed anti-Semitic behavior, largely due to the influence of the authoritarian regime under Hitler, which utilized propaganda and social pressure to encourage conformity and obedience. However, while many people complied with these harmful ideologies and actions, this explanation does not account for those who resisted or did not participate in such behaviors. The concept of obedience and conformity alone cannot fully explain the actions of individuals who rejected Nazi ideology or risked their lives to protect Jewish people. These individuals may have been driven by personal morals, values, or a strong sense of moral autonomy, suggesting that factors beyond blind obedience, such as individual conscience and courage, also play a critical role in shaping behavior. Therefore, while the influence of authority and social pressure was undeniably powerful, it does not provide a complete explanation for why some people chose not to conform to the prevalent anti-Semitic attitudes of the time.
Dispositional- social influence-
The F-scale, used to measure authoritarianism, has been criticized for its political bias, as it tends to align more closely with right-wing ideologies. Christie and Jahoda argued that the F-scale’s design reflects a particular political orientation, which may skew its results by labeling right-wing, authoritarian beliefs as pathological while overlooking similar tendencies in left-wing ideologies. This bias challenges the validity of the F-scale as a comprehensive measure of authoritarianism, as it may not fully account for authoritarian behaviors across the political spectrum. As a result, the F-scale might not provide an objective or balanced assessment of personality traits related to authority, potentially limiting its usefulness in understanding authoritarianism in a more neutral and universal context.
Dispositional- social influence- counterpoint for research support
lacked characteristics