Featured Quizzes
User Quizzes
Create Quiz
Data and Charts
Word Search
Badges and Games
About JetPunk
Message Board
Random Quiz
Dark Mode
AQA Psych Social Influence - Researchers and years - Statistics
General Stats
- This quiz has been taken 3 times
- The average score is 4 of 49
Answer Stats
| Hint | Answer | % Correct |
|---|---|---|
| Conformity Baseline Line Study | Asch 1951 | 100%
|
| Conformity Variables Line Study | Asch 1955 | 100%
|
| Obedience: Situational Variables | Milgram | 100%
|
| Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Obedience - Pp was joined by disobedient conf. - dropped from 65% to 10% | Milgram | 100%
|
| Obedience: Authoritarian Personality | Adorno 1950 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| NSI Strength: Research Support - Pps said conformed as were afraid of disapproval (Pps wrote answers down = 12.5%) | Asch 1951 | 0%
|
| ISI Counterpoint: Unclear whether NSI or ISI is at work | Asch 1955 | 0%
|
| Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Conformity - conf. acts as model of independent behaviour | Asch 1955 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Lack of realism - play-acting | Banuazizi and Mohavedi 1975 | 0%
|
| Obedience Strength: Research support - replicated findings in reality TV show | Beauvois et al. 2012 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Research Support - NYC uniform variation | Bickman 1974 | 0%
|
| Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Collectivist cultures=higher conformity | Bond and Smith 1966 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Limitation: Political bias - F-scale measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology | Christie and Jahoda 1954 | 0%
|
| Explanations for Conformity | Deutsch and Gerard 1955 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Strength: Research Support - OG obedience study Pps took f-scale | Elms and Milgram 1966 | 0%
|
| Conformity Limitation: Artificial Situation - "Groups weren't very groupy" | Fiske 2014 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Exaggeration of social roles - only 1/3 guards behaved cruelly | Fromm 1973 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Obedience Limitation: alternative explanation of findings - Pps only obeyed when identified with scientific aim of research (after prompts) | Haslam et al. 2014 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Types of Conformity | Kelman 1958 | 0%
|
| Conformity Strength: Research support - effects of task difficulty (math task) | Lucas et al. 2006 | 0%
|
| ISI Strength: Research support - Pps conformed often when math problems = difficult | Lucas et al. 2006 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Conformity to Social Roles Strength: Lack of realism Counterpoint: 90% of prisoners convos = about prison life | McDermott 2019 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Cross-cultural replications - Dutch Pps giving stressful questions to conf. desperate for a job | Meeus and Raaijmakers 1986 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Agentic state | Milgram 1961 | 0%
|
| Obedience | Milgram 1963 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Agentic state Strength: Research support - "Who is responsible if L is harmed?" | Milgram 1963 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Agentic shift - occurs when person perceives someone else as an authority figure | Milgram 1974 | 0%
|
| Minority Influence | Moscovici et al. 1969 | 0%
|
| Social Change Strength: Minority influence explains change - social change is due to type of thinking that minorities inspire | Nemeth 2009 | 0%
|
| Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Women may be more conformist | Neto 1995 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps knew procedure was fake, were playing into demand characteristics | Orne and Holland 1968 | 0%
|
| Obedience Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps didn't believe in setup, only half believed shocks were real | Orne and Holland 1968Perry 2013 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Agentic state Limitation: Limited Explanation - 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed authority figure (doctor) | Rank and Jacobson 1977 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority Limitation: can't explain all disobedience - 16/18 nurses disobeyed authority figure | Rank and Jacobson 1977 | 0%
|
| Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control | Rotter 1966 | 0%
|
| Obedience Strength: Low internal validity Counterpoint - Puppy experiment, similar findings to Milgram's | Sheridan and King 1972 | 0%
|
| Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Cross-cultural replications Counterpoint - only 2 replications of findings in India and Jordan in 1968-1985 | Smith and Bond 1998 | 0%
|
| 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 | 0%
|
| Minority Influence Strength: Research support for consistency - meta-analysis of 100 similar studies, found most consistent minorities = most influential | Wood et al. 1994 | 0%
|
| Conformity to Social Roles | Zimbardo et al. 1973 | 0%
|
No matching quizzes found
Score Distribution
Percent of People with Each Score
Percentile by Number Answered
Your Score History
You have not taken this quiz
New and Popular