NSI and ISI - Asch & Sherif
P - Unconvincing confederates
E - Students were used instead of professional actors, which lead to poor mundane realism and demand characteristics
E - Furthermore, Fiske(2014) stated that the ‘groups’ didn’t know each other which could lead to a different variable - anxiety - affecting the DV
L - Both of these issues demonstrate confounding variables in Asch’s study (1956) study
P - Internally valid design
E - The independent variable was clearly manipulated - with few confounding and extraneous variables- and the design can be easily replicated meaning it has high internal validity.
E - however, the design lacks realism and cultural change affects its outcome. Asch’s study is highly reliable but unfortunately due to cultural change it only gives 1% conformity rates if done now. This shows how individualist and collectivist cultures change.
L - overall, Asch’s study is internally valid; it has standardised measures, instructions and stimuli - other than the confederates’ acting skills there really aren’t methodological issues.
P - Temporal validity - called a ‘child of its time’
E - 1950s America was a ‘Mcarthyist’ culture - during the cold war, everyone was conscious of fitting in and being seen as typical
E - Researchers in the 1980s replicated Asch and found conformity as low as 1%, and levels similar to Asch only when using confederates (probation officers) that participants (prisoners) were keen to impress
L -This confirmed that conformity is more likely if the percieved costs of not conforming are high, which would have been the cast during the McCarthy era
Social Role Conformity - Zimbardo
P - Ethical Issues
E - prisoners were not protected from abuse or harm which they should have under guidelines. Prisoners were subjected to both verbal and physical abuse without knowledge beforehand or consent
E - furthermore all participants were lied to during the interview stage as they were asked what role they would like to play and then were randomly assigned to roles
L - this demonstrates how important it is to have ethics guidelines in place which were introduced after the SPE (BPS-1988 and APA 1997)
P - Mundane Realism
E - as it Was conducted in a basement with obvious props the lab study project may have led to demand characteristics
E - however, real life events like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal showed that people conform to social roles as Zimbardo expected
L - this demonstrates ecological validity even though the original study lacked mundane realism
P- Conformity to social roles is not automatic
E- Haslam and Reicher (2012) challenged Zimbardo’s belief that the guards’ drift into sadistic behaviour was an automatic consequence of them embracing their role.
E- they pointed out that, in the SPE, guaurd behaviour varied from being fully sadistic to, for a few, being ‘good guards’, who did not degrade or harass the prisoners, and even did small favours for them
L- Haslam and Reicher argue that this shows hat the guards chose how to behave, rather than blindly conforming to their social role, as suggested by Zimbardo.
Situational Obedience - Milgram
P -Milgram’s study has been criticised for not being Ethical
E - several participants were ill after the study. One had a heart attack, others reported nightmares and suffered anxiety.
E - however the findings from the study helped reduce the persecution of Germans so while participants weren’t protected from abuse and harm there were ethical benefits
L - cost/benefit analysis is important in socially sensitive research. Harming a few people to benefit many others was deemed an acceptable rush. From these studies and many like it the BPS guidelines were established
P - Mundane Realism
E - judging learners you cannot see and giving them real, harmful shocks is not plausible inside a university. Research shows when invited to do a study a majority of people expect to be tricked or deceived.
E - Perry (2012) found that some of Milgram’s participants said they had been sceptical from the start. Those were most likely to be disobey due to demand characteristics
L - As a result, we must be cautious about drawing broad generalisations from Milgram’s study, believing that the majority of people would commit crimes of obedience in real life
P - Comparison with dispositional factors
E - Milgram’s experiment has been criticised for ignoring dispositional factors that could cause obedience. For example the authoritarian personality has been suggested to increase obedience. Milgram with the help of Elms in 1966 invited original participants back to try to account for any effects the A.P had on the results.
E - however, it is possible that the F scale suffers from response bias or social desirability, where participants provide answers that are socially acceptable.
L - this could make milgram’s study less reliable and valid
Dispositional Obedience - AP & E&M
P - The social context is more important
E - Although Milgram accepted there might be a dispositional basis to obedience and disobedience, he did not believe the evidence for this was particularly strong
E - milgram showed that variations in the social context of the study were the primary cause of differences in participants’ levels of obedience, not variations in personality.
L - relying on an explanation of obedience based purely on authoritarianism lacks the flexibility to account for these variations
P - Wealth of research support
E - 2010 stimulation of Milgram’s study was done virtually. Results were the same which adds to maths internal validity of the study
E-furthermore, even though the experiment was virtual many participants acted as if the situation was real and there was still a high correlation between A.P and shock delivered. There was a clear and significant correlation between participants’ RWA scire and the maximum shock delivered to the victim
L - the Right Wing Authoritarianism- obedience link therefore shows the study is both reliable and valid
P - some people questioned the internal validity of the study due to the lack of regulation of the extraneous variables
E- Education level is negatively correlated with shock delivery. Some people have suggested with both obedience and RWA are due to ISI
E- repeated study looking at education and found the results stayed the same
L- due to the results staying the same you could say that the study still has good internal validity.
Resistance to SI - Rotter/LOC
P-Poor sampling - low pop. validity
E - Moghaddam (1998), found that Japanese people conform more easily than Americans.
E - Extraneous variables are not considered e.g. parents, intelligence etc.
L - Low population validity as it is culturally biased.
P - Mundane Realism
E - Twenge et al (2004) found that young Americans believed fate was determined by luck and powerful others.
E - LOC scores have changed over time.
L - Poor temporal validity.
P - Research support for flexibility (only)
E - Avtgis (1998), meta-analysis of studies of the relationship between locus of control and different forms of SI, including conformity.
E - This showed significant positive correlation for the relationship between scores of internality/externality and scores on measures of persuasion, social influence and conformity.
L - This shows internal and external validity as the results can be replicated and generalised.
Minority Influence - Moscovici
P- Research support for flexibility
E- Nemeth and Brilmayer (1987) provided support for the role of flexibility in a stimulated jury situation
E- group members discussed the amount of compensation to be paid to someone involved in a ski-lift accident. When a confederate put forward a consistent alternative point this had no effect on the other group members. However, when a confederate compromised, they exerted influence onto the majority
L - this suggests that flexibility is only effective at changing majority opinion in certain circumstances
P - The real value of minority influence
E - Nemeth (2010) argues that dissent, in the form of minority opinion ‘opens’ the mind
E - as a result of exposure to a minority position, people search for information, consider more options, make better decisions, and are more creative. Dissenters liberate people to say what they believe and they stimulate divergent and creative thought even when they are wrong.
L - this view is supported by the work of Van Dyne and Saavedra in (1996), who studied the role of dissent in work groups, finding that groups had improved decision making when exposed to a minority perspective
P - minority influence in name only
E - despite the evidence for high quality decision-making, Nemeth(2010) claims it is still difficult to convince people of the value of dissent
E - people accept the principle only on the surface, but quickly become irritated by a dissenting view that persists. They may also fear creating a lack of harmony within the group by welcoming dissent, or be made to fear repercussion, this includes being associated with a ‘deviant’ pointview
L - as a consequence, this means that the majority view persists and the opportunities for innovative thinking associated with minority influence are lost
Processes of Social Change
P - Social change is very gradual
E - Role played by minority influence may be limited since minorities such as the suffragettes rarely bring about social change quickly.
E - String tendency to conform with the majority - people more likely to maintain the status quo rather than engage in social change.
L - Minority is more latent than direct - lacks ecological validity.
P - Ecological validity
E - Not all social norm interventions have worked.
E - De Jong et al (2009) Students didn’t drink less even when told other students hardly drank.
L - Lack of test-retest reliability.
P - Boomerang effect - good people may become worse
E - Schultz et al. (2007) suggest an unwelcome problem with social norms interventions. Everyone will receive the message, not just those whose behaviour is less desirable than the norm.
E - for those who already engage in the constructive behaviour being advocated, a normative message can also spur to increasing these aspects of their behaviour to be more in line with the norm. For example, trying to get people to reduce energy usage may cause those using below the average to increase theirs to be more in line with the norm.
L - Therefore, majority influence may not always produce the desired result.
