|
Hint
|
|
Answer
|
|
Conformity Baseline Line Study
|
|
Asch 1951
|
|
Conformity Variables Line Study
|
|
Asch 1955
|
|
Conformity Limitation: Artificial Situation - "Groups weren't very groupy"
|
|
Fiske 2014
|
|
Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Women may be more conformist
|
|
Neto 1995
|
|
Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Collectivist cultures=higher conformity
|
|
Bond and Smith 1966
|
|
Conformity Strength: Research support - effects of task difficulty (math task)
|
|
Lucas et al. 2006
|
|
Types of Conformity
|
|
Kelman 1958
|
|
Explanations for Conformity
|
|
Deutsch and Gerard 1955
|
|
NSI Strength: Research Support - Pps said conformed as were afraid of disapproval (Pps wrote answers down = 12.5%)
|
|
Asch 1951
|
|
ISI Strength: Research support - Pps conformed often when math problems = difficult
|
|
Lucas et al. 2006
|
|
ISI Counterpoint: Unclear whether NSI or ISI is at work
|
|
Asch 1955
|
|
NSI Limitation: Doesn't predict conformity in every case - nAffiliators (want to relate to other people) are most likely to conform
|
|
McGhee and Teevan 1967
|
|
Conformity to Social Roles
|
|
Zimbardo et al. 1973
|
|
Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Lack of realism - play-acting
|
|
Banuazizi and Mohavedi 1975
|
|
Conformity to Social Roles Strength: Lack of realism Counterpoint: 90% of prisoners convos = about prison life
|
|
McDermott 2019
|
|
Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Exaggeration of social roles - only 1/3 guards behaved cruelly
|
|
Fromm 1973
|
|
Obedience
|
|
Milgram 1963
|
|
Obedience Strength: Research support - replicated findings in reality TV show
|
|
Beauvois et al. 2012
|
|
Obedience Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps didn't believe in setup, only half believed shocks were real
|
|
Orne and Holland 1968 Perry 2013
|
|
Obedience Strength: Low internal validity Counterpoint - Puppy experiment, similar findings to Milgram's
|
|
Sheridan and King 1972
|
|
Obedience Limitation: alternative explanation of findings - Pps only obeyed when identified with scientific aim of research (after prompts)
|
|
Haslam et al. 2014
|
|
Obedience: Situational Variables
|
|
Milgram
|
|
Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Research Support - NYC uniform variation
|
|
Bickman 1974
|
|
Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Cross-cultural replications - Dutch Pps giving stressful questions to conf. desperate for a job
|
|
Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986
|
|
Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Cross-cultural replications Counterpoint - only 2 replications of findings in India and Jordan in 1968-1985
|
|
Smith and Bond 1998
|
|
Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps knew procedure was fake, were playing into demand characteristics
|
|
Orne and Holland 1968
|
|
Obedience: Agentic state
|
|
Milgram 1961
|
|
Obedience: Agentic shift - occurs when person perceives someone else as an authority figure
|
|
Milgram 1974
|
|
Obedience: Agentic state Strength: Research support - "Who is responsible if L is harmed?"
|
|
Milgram 1963
|
|
Obedience: Agentic state Limitation: Limited Explanation - 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed authority figure (doctor)
|
|
Rank and Jacobson 1977
|
|
Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority Strength: explains cultural differences - some cultures are more obedient than others - Australian women: 16% went to 450V. Germans: 85%.
|
|
Australian Women - Kilham and Mann 1974 Germans - Mantell 1971
|
|
Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority Limitation: can't explain all disobedience - 16/18 nurses disobeyed authority figure
|
|
Rank and Jacobson 1977
|
|
Obedience: Authoritarian Personality
|
|
Adorno 1950
|
|
Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Strength: Research Support - OG obedience study Pps took f-scale
|
|
Elms and Milgram 1966
|
|
Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Limitation: Political bias - F-scale measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
|
|
Christie and Jahoda 1954
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Conformity - conf. acts as model of independent behaviour
|
|
Asch 1955
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Obedience - Pp was joined by disobedient conf. - dropped from 65% to 10%
|
|
Milgram
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control
|
|
Rotter 1966
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support Strength: research support - eight-week programme helping pregnant teens with stopping smoking - when had a buddy, less likely to pick up smoking
|
|
Albrecht et al. 2006
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence:Social Support Strength: research support - dissenting peers - oil company running a smear campaign - 29/33 Pps rebelled against orders
|
|
Gamson et al. 1982
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: LOC Strength: Research support - LOC and resistance to obedience, repeated Milgram study, 37% internals didnt continue to highest, 23% externals didnt
|
|
Holland 1967
|
|
Resistance to Social Influence: LOC Limitation: evidence challenges LOC-resistance link - American LOC studies 1960-2002: higher resistance to obedience, higher external rates
|
|
Twenge et al. 2004
|
|
Minority Influence
|
|
Moscovici et al. 1969
|
|
Minority Influence Strength: Research support for consistency - meta-analysis of 100 similar studies, found most consistent minorities = most influential
|
|
Wood et al. 1994
|
|
Minority Influence Strength: Research support for deeper processing - message was presented, measured Pps' agreement - one group heard minority agree, other majority - then were exposed to a conflicting view, attitudes were measured again - less willing to change opinions if listened to minority, not majority
|
|
Martin et al. 2003
|
|
Social Change Strength: Research support for normative influences - can they change Pps' energy-use habits? one message = most residents want to reduce. control message = no mention of other people
|
|
Nolan et al. 2008
|
|
Social Change Limitation: Research support for normative influences Counterpoint - Ppls behaviour isnt always changed through social norms - can they change students' alcohol usage? only small reduction in drinking quality, no effect on drinking frequency
|
|
Foxcroft et al. 2015
|
|
Social Change Strength: Minority influence explains change - social change is due to type of thinking that minorities inspire
|
|
Nemeth 2009
|
|
Social Change Limitation: Role of deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring social change - majority influence creates deeper processing if you don't share their views
|
|
Mackie 1987
|
