Social Influence Flashcards
Asch research initial study
128 American males - volunteered
• seated around a table and Asked to look at lines of diff lengths
• took turns to call which they thought was the same as the Standard one.
• only I Ps was genuine
• real ps angered second to last.
• confederates gave unanimous wrong answers on 12 out of 18 trials
-mean average conformity was 33%
-75% conformed at least once
Asch variables
Group size.
3 variations: ① I real ps + I confederate 3%
② I real Ps + 2 confederates 13%
③ I real Ps + 3 confederates 32%
Further increase of group size did not lead to any increase in conformity / group size is important but only up to a certain point
Unanimity
-asch broke unanimity up by introducing con who gave Correct answer
• Conformity dropped to 5%
• wanted to see what were happen when con gave a diff ans from majority and true ans
• conformity dropped to 9%
• conclude breaking up unanimity was a major factor in conformity reduction.
Difficult
-made differences in lines smaller
-level of conformity increased
When situation is ambiguous we are more likely to conform to ISI
Asch evaluation
-child of it’s time
Could be unique as it took place in period of US history when conformity was high
-repeated by Perrin and Spencer who found 1 conforming response out of 139 trial
-suggests that’s cultural change has taken place
-limitation because his research lacks temporal or historical validity
-not consistent across time
-demand characteristics
-the ps may have behave in a certain way and behave unnaturally
-e.g tried to please Asch by behaving in a way they thought they should by confirming
-lowers internal validity
-all male sample
-research suggests women may be more likely to Conform as they care more about social roles
-also all from US, research done in china suggesting conformity is higher because because social group is important
-suggests it’s not generalisable as it may only apply to American males.
+lab study
Can Control extraneous variables
E.g controlled lines in study
Strength as it mesh are what it intended too, giving it high interval validity
Milgram study
-40 male volunteers
-told study was a test of punishment and learning
-p played teacher, con played learner
-teacher was told to administer shock if learner got incorrect answer on memorising word pairs
-watched learner being strapped to chair
-every time he made error shock went up from 15v to 450v
-study continued till they refused to continue or till 450 v reached 3 times
-all ps went to 300v
65% went to 450v
-conclusion that people in certain circumstances will go against moral judgment and obey authority figure
Milgrams evaluation
-demand characteristics
Researches suggest ps gave very high shocks as they guessed they weren’t real
Supported that a researcher found many ps we’re sceptical about If they were real
-one of the assistants divided ps into his view of doubters and believers
Found believers were more likely to disobey
Lack’s internal validity
-all male sample in
Only gives insight of obedience in limited sample
-culture and gender bias as they may differ in females or other cultures
Difficult to generalise to other populations
-ethical issues
-ps were harmed psychologically when led to believe they were harming someone and deceived about aims of study and that’s the con was another p
-questions integrity of research and of psychology
+however may be justified as they were debriefed and 80% said they were happy to have taken part and contribute to research
+replications support
Carried out statistical analysis
And other studies
Found no mkre or less obedience than milgram
strength as is suggests his findings apply today too as they did back then
Milgram variables
Location
-moved from Yale uni to seedy offices
-obedience fell to 47% in a less respectable place
-explained by lack of legitimate authority
Proximity
-teacher and learner in same room
Fell to 40% as they saw the distress caused by them
-has to force learners hand on the shock plate
Fell to 30% as they were required to use physical contact
Experimenter left room and gave instructions over phone
-obedience fell to 20%
Decreased proximity through agentic state
Uniform
-in baseline they wore lab coat (authority)
-replaced with member of public in everyday clothes
-obedience dropped to 20%
-lack of legitimate authority
Milgram variable’s evaluation
-ignores effect of internal factors like personality
-e.g authoritan personality are more likely to show blind obedience to those they see as a higher status
-supported by research who found those with AP traits were more likely to administer big shocks in ms experiment
-reduced validity as obedience could be due too dispositional effects rather than external factors
-Milgram study supports that situation is why someone might obey
-has been critiqued as psychologists argue or offered an excuse for evil behaviour
-could offence survivors of holocaust as it suggests nazis were simply,y obeying orders and were victims themselves of situational factors
Authoritarian personality
Especially susceptible to those in authority.
- respectful and submissive to those in authority
-believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values like love of country and family
- hostile to those of inferior social status.
-forms in childhood from harsh parenting like strict discipline, high standards and criticism of failing
-these children are unable to express feelings to parents in fear of punishment
-displace their fear on other who the think are weaker (scape goating)
Authoritarian personality research
Adorno et al
-attitudes to racial minorities measured in 2000 white Americans
-f scale used to measure difference components of authoritarian personality
-found those with AP were contemptuous of those they thought weak
- conscience of people status
- fixed stereotypes of others
-sting correlation found with those of AP and prejudice
Evaluation of AP
+supporting evidence
Milgram found those who scored higher on f scale they were obedient in his study
Obedient ps also reported viewing experimenter as more admirable and learner less so
Supports adornos findings that Ap makes us more likely to obey
-methodological issues
He measured attitude using attitude scale
Rating scales are criticised as they are subject to social desirability bias, may not tell truth to look desirable to researcher
-questionnaires may not he a valid measure of personality, reduces validity
-cannot explain group obedience
Can’t explain entities group for societies
E.g high levels of obedience,racism and anti semitic behaviour seen in Germany in ww1 could be due to dispositional factors e.g unlikely whole population had an AP
Appears alternative explanations must influence obedience more than AP
Agentin state
- more likely to obey as you see yourself as having no personal responsibility as your acting for the authority figure
-opposite is autonomous state. Agentic shift when someone perceives someone as authority figure
-they believe they are not longer responsible and feel responsible to do the job right for the authority figure
Legitimacy if authority
Recognise authority like policemen, doctors
Give up indpenden and hand control to AF
Uniform can increase legitimacy
AF has power to punish
Agentic state and legitimacy evaluation
Agentic stage
+Milgram supports
When told on phone obedience dropped to 20%
Shifted to autonomus state ad the saw themselves as responsible
Shoots view obedience increases when in Agentic state and falls in autonomous
Legitimacy
+ Milgram found more likely to obey in Yale than offices went done to 47%
Suggest that r obey because we perceive af as legitimate
