Paper 1 - Social Influence AO3 Flashcards
(36 cards)
1
Q
What is a limitation of Asch’s study into conformity regarding its EI’S?
A
- Ethical concerns, particularly deception and psychological harm
- Participants were misled about the study’s purpose believing it was about perception meaning no informed consent. Also showed stress, with some questioning their eyesight
- Suggests ethical concerns, as participants were not fully aware of what they were agreeing to and may have experienced psychological distress.
2
Q
What is a strength of Asch’s study into conformity regarding research supporting variables inbfesgaited ?
A
- Research supports the idea that task difficulty influences conformity
- Lucas et al. (2006) found that participants were more likely to conform to incorrect answers when solving difficult maths problems.
- Supports Asch’s findings, suggesting that when tasks are harder, people are more likely to rely on others’ answers, increasing conformity.
3
Q
What is a limitation of Asch’s study into conformity regarding complexity of conformity ?
A
- Conformity is more complex than Asch suggested, as individual differences also play a role
- Lucas et al. (2006) found that participants with higher confidence in their maths ability conformed less on difficult problems compared to those with lower confidence
- Suggests that Asch focused too much on situational factors and overlooked how participant variables can influence conformity.
4
Q
What is a limitation of Asch’s study into conformity regarding cultural bias ?
A
- Asch’s findings may not apply to all cultures, as he only studied American participants
- Smith & Bond (1998) analysed 133 conformity studies done in 17 different countries and found that collectivistic cultures (e.g., China) showed higher conformity than individualistic cultures (e.g., USA).
- Suggests that Asch’s findings cannot be generalised to collectivistic cultures
5
Q
What is a strength of the working memory model regarding case studies?
A
- Evidence from case study of brain damaged patient
- Shallice & Warrington (1970) studied KF, a patient who suffered brain damage from a motorbike accident. KF had difficulty processing verbal information in short-term memory but retained his ability to process visual information
- Suggests the phonological loop was damaged while the visuospatial sketchpad remained intact. Proving evidence that STM is not a unitary store as it would be expected to affect both types of information equally.
6
Q
What is a strength of the working memory model regarding extra research ?
A
- Supported by research from dual task studies
- Baddeley et al. (1975) conducted an experiment where participants completed a visual tracking task, whilst simultaneously performing either a visual task or a verbal task. Results showed participants struggled to complete both visual tasks at the same time but had no difficulty performing the visual and verbal tasks together
- Concluded that performing two visual tasks simultaneously is difficult because they compete for the same limited resources in the visuospatial sketchpad, where as when one visual and one verbal they are using separate components so can work simultaneously. Supporting claim that short-term memory consists of multiple independent stores
7
Q
What is a limitation of the working memory model regarding lack of EV ?
A
- Dual task studies lack ecological validity
- Baddeley et al.’s (1975) study, participants were asked to complete artificial tasks which are not commonly encountered in everyday life
- Suggests findings cannot be generalised to real life weakling dual studies as a source of evidence
8
Q
What is a limitation of the working memory model regarding issues with case studies?
A
- Limiations in the research
- Shallice & Warrington’s (1970) study of KF. Although showing evidence for separte memory stores, case studies focus on unique individuals with specific brain damage.
- Each case has unique characteristics, it is difficult to generalise the findings to the wider population so cannot be applied to people with typical cognitive functioning
9
Q
What is a strength of explanations into conformity regarding ISI and its research ?
A
- Individual differences in ISI and that it does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
- For example, individuals who are more confident in their own abilities are less affected by ISI. Perrin & Spencer (1980) conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found very little evidence of conformity
- This suggests that the desire to be right underlies conformity for some people more than others.
10
Q
What is a limitation of explanations into conformity regarding ISI and its research findings issue with individuals?
A
- Individual differences in ISI and that it does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
- For example, individuals who are more confident in their own abilities are less affected by ISI. Perrin & Spencer (1980) conducted a study involving science and engineering students and found very little evidence of conformity
- This suggests that the desire to be right underlies conformity for some people more than others.
11
Q
What is a strength of explanations into conformity regarding NSI and its research ?
A
- Reserach support
- Asch found that after the procedure was conducted when participants were interviewed they explained that they changed their answer to avoid disapproval
- This supports NSI and suggestion that it often results in compliance
12
Q
What is a limitation of explanations into conformity regarding NSI and its individual differences ?
A
- Individual differences that it does not affect everyone’s behaviour in the same way.
- For example, individuals who are more concerned with being liked are more affected by NSI. Individuals who are more concerned with being liked are called nAffiliators. McGhee & Teevan (1967) found that students who were nAffiliators are more likely to conform
- This suggests that the desire to be liked underlies conformity for some people more than others
13
Q
What is a strength of the research by Zimbardo into conformity to social roles regarding real-world relevance ?
A
- Real world relevance
- Zimbardo argued that the SPE reflects events at Abu Ghraib, where US soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners. He suggested that the power associated with the role of prison guard led to prisoner abuse in both situations.
- Suggests the findings help explain real-life events, cases of prisoner abuse.
14
Q
What is a strength of the research by Zimbardo into conformity to social roles regarding control ?
A
- Well controlled
- Zimbardo only selected ‘emotionally stable’ participants and randomly assigned them to prisoner or guard roles = Attempt to control participant variables avoiding them acting as extraneous variables
- Ensures behavior was influenced by roles, increasing the study’s internal validity
15
Q
What is a limitation of the research by Zimbardo into conformity to social roles regarding exaggeration ?
A
- Exaggerated the influence of social roles on behaviour
- In the SPE, guard behavior varied—one-third were brutal, one-third were fair, and one-third actively helped prisoners by offering support and reinstating privileges.
- Suggests that dispositional factors (personality) also played a role, meaning Zimbardo may have overstated the power of social roles
16
Q
What is a limitation of the research by Zimbardo into conformity to social roles regarding demand characteristics ?
A
-Behaviour in the SPE may have been influenced by demand characteristics
- Banuazizi & Movahedi (1975) argued participants were play-acting based on stereotypes rather than genuinely conforming to roles. One guard admitted he based his behavior on a character from Cool Hand Luke.
- Suggests the SPE lacks internal validity and may not accurately show the real influence of social roles.
17
Q
What is a limitation of the research by Milgram into obedience regarding EI’s?
A
- Ethical Issues
- Participants = misled about the true aim and believed they were giving real electric shocks, preventing informed consent. Although Milgram claimed they could withdraw, the experimenter’s prods made this difficult. Participants also = extreme stress, Milgram filmed there responses and found that participants were trembling, sweating and stuttering, experience could have harmful long-term effects.
- Fail to meet ethical standards, suggesting it should not have been carried out.
18
Q
What is a limitation of the research by Milgram into obedience regarding Validity?
A
-Lack internal validity.
- Orne & Holland (1968) argued participants likely guessed the shocks weren’t real so delivered the shocks therefore responding to a demand characteristics
- Undermining the study’s conclusions.
19
Q
What is a strength of the research by Milgram into obedience regarding Validity?
A
- Milgram responded to Orne & Holland’s criticism by citing evidence from films he made of some of his experiments
- Footage showing participants in visible distress, and follow-up interviews and questionnaires confirmed that most believed the shocks were real. He also questioned why some participants refused to continue if they were just acting.
- Suggests research has internal validity.
20
Q
What is a strength of the research by Milgram into obedience regarding replication?
A
- Findings have been replicated
- Beauvois et al (2012) set a television game show, with participants believing they were contestants of a show. They were asked ti give (fake) electric shocks to other participants who were actors. 80% delivered the maximum shock of 460V
- Suggest Milgrams findings are highly reliable
21
Q
What is a strength of explanations of obedience - agentic state regarding explaining behaviour?
A
- Milgram’s own research supports the agentic state explanation of obedience
- Most participants resisted at some point and asked, “Who is responsible if Mr. Wallace is harmed?” When the experimenter replied, “I’m responsible,” participants usually continued quickly with no further objections
- This suggests that once participants no longer felt personally responsible and attributed responsibility to the experimenter, they entered an agentic state and obeyed more easily.
22
Q
What is a limitation of explanations of obedience - agentic state regarding not always being able to explaining behaviour?
A
- The agentic shift cannot always explain obedience.
- Rank & Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to administer an excessive drug dose.
- Despite the doctor being an authority figure, most nurses remained in an autonomous state. This shows the agentic shift is not automatic and cannot always explain obedience.
23
Q
What is a strength of explanations of obedience - legitimacy of authority regarding explaining CD’s?
A
- Explain cultural differences in obedience
- Kilham & Mann (1974) found a 16% obedience rate in Australia, while Mantell (1971) found 85% obedience in Germany. These differences reflect variations in social hierarchies and how children are raised to perceive authority
- Findings increase the validity of legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
24
Q
What is a limitation of explanations of obedience - legitimacy of authority regarding not always being able to explain obedience ?
A
- Legitimacy of authority cannot always explain obedience.
- Rank & Jacobson (1977) found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order despite his legitimate authority. Milgram also found a significant minority disobeyed the experimenter despite his scientific authority.
- This suggests some people are inherently more or less obedient, regardless of the authority’s legitimacy.
25
What is a strength of explanations of obedience -dipositional explanations regarding evidence ?
-There is evidence supporting the link between the authoritarian personality and obedience.
- Elms & Milgram (1966) studied 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants from Milgram’s original experiment. All completed the F-Scale, which showed higher levels of authoritarianism among obedient participants.
- Supporting idea that individuals with an authoritarian personality = susceptible to obedience
26
What is a strength of explanations of obedience -dipositional explanations regarding evidence by others (not Milgram!)?
- Further evidence on connection between authoritarian personality and obedience.
- Altmeyer (1988) found that participants with an authoritarian personality type who were ordered to give themselves shocks administered higher shocks than those without the personality type.
- This suggests individuals with an authoritarian personality are more likely to obey authority than those with different personality types.
27
What is a limitation of explanations of obedience -dipositional explanations regarding not a good explanation on large scale?
- Dispositional explanations of obedience cannot explain obedient behaviour on a large scale.
- For example, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals all displayed obedient, racist and anti-Semitic behaviour. This was despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely that they could all possess an authoritarian personality.
- Suggests that alternative explanations of obedience, such as the role of situational factors, are more realistic.
28
What is a limitation of explanations of obedience -dipositional explanations regarding political bias?
- The F-scale is politically biased and limited in scope.
- Christie & Jahoda (1954) pointed out it only measures extreme right-wing ideology, despite extreme left-wing ideologies sharing traits like complete obedience to authority.
- Means the authoritarian personality is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation for obedience across the whole political spectrum.
29
What is strength of research into social influence regarding social support and Asch's research into conformity ?
- Further evidence to support theory
- Allen & Levine (1971) replicated Asch’s study using three conditions. In condition 2, participants received support from a confederate with poor vision (invalid support), and in condition 3, from a confederate with normal vision (valid support). Conformity was reduced in both conditions compared to condition 1, where there was no social support.
- This suggests that the presence of an ally, regardless of how credible they appear, can still reduce the pressure to conform. Simply breaking the unanimity of the majority gives individuals confidence to act independently.
30
What is strength of research into social influence regarding social support and Milgrams research into obedience ?
- Further evidence to support theory
- Mullen et al. (1990) found that participants were more likely to jay-walk when they saw others (disobedient models) doing so first.
- Suggests that observing others resist authority or break rules provides social support, making individuals more confident in resisting social influence themselves.
31
What is strength of research into social influence regarding LoC ?
- Further evidence to support theory
-Moghaddam (1998) found that Japanese individuals are more susceptible to conformity than American individuals. Japanese individuals also have a more external LoC than American individuals.
- supports the idea that a high external LoC makes individuals more susceptible to social influence, and also suggests that cultural differences in conformity may be linked to variations in LoC.
32
What is a limitation of research into social influence regarding LoC ?
- Not all evidence supports the link between internal locus of control (LoC) and resistance to obedience.
- Twenge et al. (2004) analysed American obedience studies over 40 years and found that although people have become more resistant to obedience, they have also become more external
- This challenges the idea that resistance is linked to an internal LoC, as we would expect increased resistance to be accompanied by greater internality, not externality.
33
What is a strength into minority influence regarding further research into consistency ?
- Supporting evidence for the importance of consistency.
- Wood et al. (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of almost 100 studies and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were the most influential.
- This supports the idea proposed by Moscovici et al. (1969) that consistency is a key factor in successful minority influence
34
What is a strength into minority influence regarding further research into flexibility ?
- Research supporting the role of flexibility in minority influence.
- Nemeth (1986) created groups of three participants and one confederate who had to decide how much compensation to pay to the victim of a ski-lift accident. Found that a confederate arguing for a low compensation amount had no effect when he was inflexible, but when he compromised slightly, the majority shifted closer to his position.
- This demonstrates that being too rigid can be off-putting, and that minorities are more persuasive when they show a willingness to adapt
35
What is a strength into minority influence regarding evidence showing permanent changes?
- Evidence showing it can lead to deeper processing of information.
- Martin et al. (2003) found that participants who heard a message supported by a minority were less likely to change their opinion after being exposed to a conflicting viewpoint, compared to those who heard support from a majority.
- This suggests that views expressed by minorities are processed more deeply, leading to more enduring attitude change when individuals are influenced, supporting the idea of real and permanent conversion.
36
What is a limitation into minority influence regarding further research ?
- Research often lacks ecological validity due to artificial tasks.
- Moscovici et al. (1969) asked participants to judge the colour of slides, a task with no real consequences for being wrong.
- This limits the applicability of the findings to real-life situations, such as jury decisions or political debates, where minority influence can have serious consequences. As a result, the research may not accurately reflect how minority influence operates in everyday life.
