AQA Psych Social Influence - Researchers and years

Conformity Baseline Line Study

Conformity Variables Line Study

Conformity Limitation: Artificial Situation - "Groups weren't very groupy"

Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Women may be more conformist

Conformity Limitation: Limited application - Collectivist cultures=higher conformity

Conformity Strength: Research support - effects of task difficulty (math task)

Types of Conformity

Explanations for Conformity

NSI Strength: Research Support - Pps said conformed as were afraid of disapproval (Pps wrote answers down = 12.5%)

ISI Strength: Research support - Pps conformed often when math problems = difficult

ISI Counterpoint: Unclear whether NSI or ISI is at work

NSI Limitation: Doesn't predict conformity in every case - nAffiliators (want to relate to other people) are most likely to conform

Conformity to Social Roles

Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Lack of realism - play-acting

Conformity to Social Roles Strength: Lack of realism Counterpoint: 90% of prisoners convos = about prison life

Conformity to Social Roles Limitation: Exaggeration of social roles - only 1/3 guards behaved cruelly

Obedience

Obedience Strength: Research support - replicated findings in reality TV show

Obedience Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps didn't believe in setup, only half believed shocks were real

Obedience Strength: Low internal validity Counterpoint - Puppy experiment, similar findings to Milgram's

Obedience Limitation: alternative explanation of findings - Pps only obeyed when identified with scientific aim of research (after prompts)

Obedience: Situational Variables

Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Research Support - NYC uniform variation

Obedience: Situational Variables Strength: Cross-cultural replications - Dutch Pps giving stressful questions to conf. desperate for a job

Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Cross-cultural replications Counterpoint - only 2 replications of findings in India and Jordan in 1968-1985

Obedience: Situational Variables Limitation: Low internal validity - Pps knew procedure was fake, were playing into demand characteristics

Obedience: Agentic state

Obedience: Agentic shift - occurs when person perceives someone else as an authority figure

Obedience: Agentic state Strength: Research support - "Who is responsible if L is harmed?"

Obedience: Agentic state Limitation: Limited Explanation - 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed authority figure (doctor)

Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority Strength: explains cultural differences - some cultures are more obedient than others - Australian women: 16% went to 450V. Germans: 85%.

Obedience: Legitimacy of Authority Limitation: can't explain all disobedience - 16/18 nurses disobeyed authority figure

Obedience: Authoritarian Personality

Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Strength: Research Support - OG obedience study Pps took f-scale

Obedience: Authoritarian Personality Limitation: Political bias - F-scale measures tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology

Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Conformity - conf. acts as model of independent behaviour

Resistance to Social Influence: Social Support: Obedience - Pp was joined by disobedient conf. - dropped from 65% to 10%

Resistance to Social Influence: Locus of Control

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

Resistance to Social Influence:Social Support Strength: research support - dissenting peers - oil company running a smear campaign - 29/33 Pps rebelled against orders

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

Resistance to Social Influence: LOC Limitation: evidence challenges LOC-resistance link - American LOC studies 1960-2002: higher resistance to obedience, higher external rates

Minority Influence

Minority Influence Strength: Research support for consistency - meta-analysis of 100 similar studies, found most consistent minorities = most influential

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

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

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

Social Change Strength: Minority influence explains change - social change is due to type of thinking that minorities inspire

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