social influence A03 Flashcards
(29 cards)
what are 2 lmiations and one strength of aschs /conformity study?
artifical task , limited application, and resarch support
What is one - asch confromty research?
One- of asch research is that the task and situation was artificial.
This is becasue PS knew thery were in research study and may have just gne along with demand charactertics, because the task was very trivial and wasnt really a reason not to conform.- and a researcher commented tat the groups arent very groupy and didnt represnet groups in everday life.
and so cannt generqlise to real world situations.
What is another limitation of asch research?
P- one - of ash researche is that it has limited application.
E- this is becasue his research was conducted on american men and didnt use women at all which some research suggests that women mabe more conformists because they are concerned about social relatioships more.
E- also ASCH only used men from a individualist culture. evidence comes from simliari conformity studies that were from collectvist cultures such as china and found confromityrates were higher.
L- mean tht asch rseaecrher tell us little about confomrity across women and people from diferetn cultures.
What is one strength of ASCHS research?
P- one strength of aschs research is hat there is resaerch support fro the task difficuty variation.
e- This comes froma researcher who gave hard and easy math problems. and were given asnwers from 3 other students - and they confromed more often when problmes were harder
e- showing that task diffucuty is a variable that does affect conformity.
L
What is one strength of NSI?
P- one strength of NSI is that it has reseaech support from ashc study.
E- evidijvce comes from asch research to when he conducted intervwies and said they conformed because they felt self consious when giving the answer and had fear of disaaparoval.
E- and this is why conformtiy fell to 12.5% becasuse they were allowed to writ the correct answer on a piece of paper,and gave them privately so had no mormative group pressure.
L- shwoing that there is some confmorty due to the desre of being accepted and not rejected by a group.
What is one strength for ISI?-informational social influence?
P- one strength of ISI is rseaerch suoport from TODD LUCCAS math proboems task.
E-evidince fro this comes from when confority was low when the task were easy and increased when tasks became difficutlt.
E- this is becasue when the task were easy they relied on themselves and saw the answer clearly.
but when the task became diifuft they confromed to the answers of other becasue they didnt want to be seen as wrong so relied on the answers given.
L- Thefroe this is a strength of ISI becaaue this is what it would predict.
What is one limitation for NSI?
Individual dfferneces
P- one - of NSI is that is cannot predict conformity in every case
E- for exaple such as poeple called AFLLILIATORS need a strogn sense of aflflaition and want to have a srong sense of being liked by people.
E- study showed that these people are more likely to conform than other
L-This menas that individual differences can underlie NSI and cant be fully explained by one theory of situaltionnal pressures
What is one strength of ZIMBARDOS study?
P- one strength of zimabrdos stidy is the high dgeree of control he had over key variables.
E- one example of this was when he selected participants. This was beasue the 21 men were randoly assiigned the roles who were all emotionally stable so this ruled out individual differences that couldve explained the findings.
E- but if they were given those roles by chanceand behaved very differently then it would mean that their behaviour may have been due to the role itself.
L-s othis increaeses the internal valdity of the study because this confoudning variabel can ebcontrolled and we can be sure that conformity to the role lead to the chnage in behaviour.
hello please can you break down and explain this paragraph for me? One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.
The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.
This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
ChatGPT said:
Of course! Here’s a simple breakdown and explanation of that paragraph:
Original Paragraph:
One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.
The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner. This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings. If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.
This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.
Simplified Explanation:
Main Point:
A key strength of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) was how much control the researchers had over important factors (called variables).
Example of Control:
They carefully picked participants who were emotionally stable. Then, they randomly assigned them to be either guards or prisoners. This random selection is important because it means any differences in behavior weren’t because of personality differences.
Why That Matters:
If the guards and prisoners acted very differently, even though they were randomly assigned, it suggests their behavior was caused by the roles they were given—not who they were as people.
Conclusion:
Because of this strong control, the study had good internal validity. That means we can trust that the behavior seen in the study was really due to the experiment (the roles), not some other factor.
Would you like a summary of what “internal validity” means more deeply?
You said:
sorry i still dont understand it
ChatGPT said:
No problem at all — let’s go step by step and make it even clearer, like we’re just having a conversation about it.
First Sentence:
“One strength of the SPE is that Zimbardo and his colleagues had control over key variables.”
What this means:
One good thing about the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is that the people running it (Zimbardo and his team) were able to carefully manage important parts of the experiment. These important parts are called variables — things that can affect the outcome of the study (like who is chosen, how they’re treated, etc.).
Second Sentence:
“The most obvious example of this was the selection of participants. Emotionally-stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guard and prisoner.”
What this means:
A clear example of that control is in how they picked the people for the study. They made sure to choose people who were emotionally stable — meaning they weren’t easily upset or aggressive. Then, instead of choosing who would be a guard or a prisoner based on personality, they randomly (by chance) put people into those roles.
Third Sentence:
“This was one way in which the researchers ruled out individual personality differences as an explanation of the findings.”
What this means:
Because the roles were given randomly, they could be sure that personality differences (like being naturally mean or shy) weren’t the reason people acted the way they did. So, the behavior they saw (like the guards being cruel) must have come from the role itself, not from who the person already was.
Fourth Sentence:
“If guards and prisoners behaved very differently, but were in those roles only by chance, then their behaviour must have been due to the role itself.”
What this means:
If the guards acted one way and the prisoners acted another — and they got those roles randomly — then the roles (not their personalities) caused the behavior.
Last Sentence:
“This degree of control over variables increased the internal validity of the study, so we can be much more confident in drawing conclusions about the influence of roles on conformity.”
What this means:
Because the researchers controlled things so well, the study had strong internal validity — which just means we can trust that the results (like how people behaved in their roles) were actually caused by the experiment and not something else. So, we can be more sure that taking on a role (like “guard”) really influenced how people behaved.
In short:
The researchers made sure the participants were emotionally stable and randomly gave them roles. This meant that the way people behaved (like guards becoming aggressive) had to be because of the role, not their personality. That makes the results more trustworthy.
Would you like me to explain anything in a different way or give a real-life example to make it clearer?
You said:
yes please a real life example
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely! Here’s a simple real-life example to help make the idea clearer:
Imagine This:
You’re a teacher doing an experiment at school. You want to see if the role someone is given changes how they act — not their personality.
So you do this:
You pick 10 students who are all calm, friendly, and emotionally balanced.
You randomly assign 5 of them to be “hall monitors” (like guards), and the other 5 to be “rule breakers” (like prisoners).
You tell the hall monitors they are in charge — they can give warnings and tell people what to do.
You tell the rule breakers they have to follow the rules set by the hall monitors and they lose privileges if they don’t.
What Happens Next?
After a few days, you notice the hall monitors start acting bossy, strict, or even mean. The rule breakers start getting upset or anxious.
But remember — they were all friendly and calm before, and their roles were chosen randomly.
So what does this show?
Since their personalities were the same, and they got their roles by chance, the roles themselves must have caused the change in behavior.
How this relates to the original paragraph:
Just like in the Stanford Prison Experiment, this shows that roles and situations can have a big influence on how people behave — even more than their personalities sometimes.
Does that real-life example help clear things up?
You said:
yes thank you could pls apply it to the standford prison experiment?
ChatGPT said:
Of course! Let’s apply the same idea to the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) using the concepts we’ve talked about. I’ll walk you through it step by step.
The Stanford Prison Experiment Setup:
Participants:
Zimbardo and his team selected emotionally stable college students for the study. These students were all mentally healthy and didn’t have any extreme personality traits like being overly aggressive or submissive.
Random Assignment:
These students were randomly assigned to two roles: some became “guards” and others became “prisoners.” This was important because it meant that who got assigned to which role was totally by chance, and not based on who was more dominant or more submissive. Everyone was the same at the start.
What Happened in the Experiment:
The “Guards”:
The people randomly assigned to be guards started to act very authoritative, strict, and even cruel toward the prisoners. They made the prisoners do degrading tasks, created arbitrary rules, and punished them harshly. Over time, some even became emotionally abusive.
The “Prisoners”:
The people randomly assigned to be prisoners started to act very submissive, anxious, and defeated. They followed the guards’ orders, even when it meant suffering, and some even broke down emotionally.
Why This Is Important:
Because the participants were randomly assigned to their roles (guard or prisoner), it wasn’t their personalities that caused this behavior. In other words, emotionally stable people, who were all the same at the beginning, ended up acting very differently based solely on the roles they were given.
The guards felt empowered and acted in controlling ways because of their role.
The prisoners felt powerless and acted submissively because of their role.
This shows that the roles themselves influenced how people behaved, not their individual personalities.
Control Over Variables & Internal Validity:
Zimbardo and his team had good control over key variables, like who was assigned to each role. This meant that personality differences between the guards and prisoners couldn’t explain why they acted differently. Instead, the behavior must have come from the roles they were given.
That control made the experiment have strong internal validity — meaning the researchers could confidently conclude that the roles themselves were what caused the changes in behavior.
What This Means:
Just like the school example we talked about earlier, in the SPE, the behavior of the participants was shaped more by the role they were given (guard or prisoner) than by who they were as individuals. The random assignment made sure the roles were the key factor.
Conclusion:
The random assignment in the Stanford Prison Experiment meant that the behaviors of guards and prisoners had to come from the role itself — not from any personal traits or individual differences.
This makes the findings of the experiment more reliable because we can say the role of being a “guard” or “prisoner” directly influenced behavior, rather than other factors.
Does that make sense now, how the concept applies directly to the Stanford Prison Experiment?
What is one limiation of zimbardo study?
P-one - of zimbardoes study was the lack or realism.
E- This is because a researcher arugued that particpiant were play acting rather than actually conforming to their role.
E-evidice comes from a guard that claimed that he was basing his role of a brutal chractwer in a fild called cool hand luke, which also explaines why the prisoner may have rioted because this is what real prisoners did.
L-therefore this isia - becaseue the SPE tell us little about conformity into social roles in actual prisons.
What is another limiation of the SPE?
P-another - of the SPE is the roles were exxagerated of power of the social roles.
E- This evidice comes from a rseaecger identfying tat it was only 1/3 of guard who were brutal to the prisoner and the other third tried to apply the rules fairly and the other tried to even help the other prisoner by offering cigarettes and reinstatsting privellages.
E- which shows that not all of the guard were conforming to the situaltional pressures. and not be so brutal.
L- This is a - of SPE rsearcher becasue s zimbrado over stimated the infleunce of dispoitional factors that may play a role in conformity to social roles.
what is one strenght of milgrams reserahc into obedicnace?
One strength of milgrams research is that there is resaecrh to support from findings replicated.
evdiince comes from a researcher who told particpinat they were in a pilot episode for a new show called game of death and were paid to give fake electric shocks, by the presenter to the other particpinats who were actors in front of a audience.
and 80 % of them gave the highest vltage level of shock of 450v and theri behavouir was also identical to that of milgrams PS such as nail biting trembling and signs of anxiety.
therfore this uspports milrams findings and that his findings werent just due to special circumdtances.
What is one limitation of milgrams obedicace resaerch?
One limiation of milgrams research is that is may have low internal validty.
this is becasue despite milgram said that most of his PS thought the ecltreci shocks were real, other researchers have argued that the PS were just play acting and didnt think the set up was real.
and this is evidient from a rseaecher who lstend to the tape recordings of the PS and only a half of them belived the electric shocks were real and most of these disobeyed.
suggestning that PS were just repsonding to demand charcaterics of the study.
What is another limiation of milgrams obedinace research?
Another limiation of milgrams obedicnce research is that there maybe an alternative way of explaning the findings.
E- evidinec comes from a rseaecrher who said that PS contuined uptil the thrid verbal prod of the experiment reuiwres you to continue but when the 4 th prod of - you have no choice you must obey/carry on then they without exception disobyed.
this becasue of the social identity theory the PS only obeyed becasue they identifued themselves with the scientific aims of the research and when told to blindly obey they refused.
L- therforw the SIT may prvude a more valid explantion than milgrams one.
What is one strength of sitautional explantiosn?
One strength of situational expantions is that there is researcher spport from a field study (a type of study that takes place in a natural envrioment but varibles are still controlled.)
Evidince comesfrom BICKMan that asked 3 confedarted to dress up as a milk man, a man wearing a shirt and tie and a securty guard uniform, and stood in the street.
they asked the people passing by to pick up litter from or hand over a coin from the parking meter and found that people were twcie as likely to obey the guard uniform than the other two.
L- therfore this shows that a stnal vraible uniform can affect obedicnac.
What is another strenghtof sitautinal vraibales?
One tsrenght is that milgrams fininds in situanl varaibles have been cross cultrally replicated.
evidince comes from a researcher who replicated milgrams study but with DUTCH PS. and a more realistic procedure.
who were told to say stressful things to a person appplying for a job (confedarte) and 90% of them had obyed.
they also did this with proximity where the perosn giving the order to the PS went away obedince dropped.
L- therfreo this means that milrams findings are not just contricted to american men but also valid across other cultures and applied to women too.
What is one limiation of milgrams situational variables research?
One limiation of milgrams situnl varibl research is that his unform variation may also may low innternal validty
this is becasue a researcher pointed out that due to the extra manipluation of varibales in his uniform variation where the experimnete was replaced with a memeber of the public. the PS may have worked out the truth and just ‘played along’
herefore we cannot be sure if whether findings of milrams is due to obedinca eitsel or because the PS worked out the demand characterics of the study and then just played along. THROUGH DECEPTION
What is one strength for agentic state sitauonal explanton for obediance?
one strength of the agentic state exp is that there is reearch support from milgrams study.
evidince fro this comes from when the PS asked the experimenter who is responsibe for the learner if he gets harmed, and the experimneters sadi i am.
this allowed them to go through the porcedre quickly without even consiously thinking about it and didnt feel any repsosiblty for their own actions anymore.
this means that once the PS shoften theri auonmtyy to an -agent- then it allowed them to act on the experimenters behalf.
What is one limiation of the agentic state explantion?
one limitation of the agtentic state explantio is that it only proived a limited explantion.
this is because evidince comes from a study where 16/18 nurses disobeyed the order to adminster a drug excessibely to a patient via teleophone by the doctor
and the doctor was obsvioulsy a auhory figure but disobeyed, remained autonmous.
therefore it provided only a limited explantion.
What is one strenght of legitimacy of authrty explantion?
P- one strength of the LOA exp is that there is research to support that it can explain cultraldifferences.
E-eviidnce comes from a researcher who found 16% of australian women went upto 450v on milgram styles study
BUT 85% of germans went upto 450v
this means that i some cultures the authority is more likley to be accpeted as as legitimate and entitled to obediance
shwoing how different socioeties are sturcuted and how children are raised to percive authorty figures.
What is one limitation of LOA?
What is one strength of the disposoaitonal explantion for obediance?
P- one strength of dispositional explantion i sthat there is redearch to support that authrotarian perosnalities are generally more obediant.
E- this comes from a rsearcher who intervwied milgrams paripiant who were fully obediant in the original study and copmared it to a control group who were fully disobedaint
and completed a F scale.
E- and found that those who obeyed had a signfifactnly higher score in the F scale comapred to the control group
and were quite differet in terms of authoritarianism.
L- therefore supports that veiwe that authroitantioan perosnality can affect obedice.
What is one limiation/counterpoin to the strength of AP?
However the researchers also measured their the individual subscales on the F scale and foun that the disobedaint PS had a number of unsual charcatitscs for a AP .
such as not having hostile attitudes toward their parent and didnt glorify their father and didnt have such a strict childhood.
suggesting that the link between AP and childhood maybe complex than we think.
What is one limitation of AP ?
P- another limiation of the AP is that it only provides a limited explantion
E- this is because in germany many of the people displayed obediant and anitsematic behaviour, but all of them differed in their personalities.
E- and its would be hgihly unikley that all of them possesed an AP.
and so an alternative explantion explains this through the SOCIAL IDENTOTY THEORY which states that the germans idenftified with the anit sematic nazi state and scapegoated the jews.
L- therfore this only provied a partial cplantion and the alternative explantion maybe more realistic.
