Aqa Psychology- Social Influence Key Studies

Front 1

Acsh (1955)

Back 1

Tested conformity.

Used 123 American male university students. They were put in groups with 1 naive participant and 6-8 confederates. Each person did 18 trials.

They shown 1 line and 3 comparison lines and were asked which lines were the same length. The answer was obvious.

The confederates gave the wrong answer in 12 trials.

Front 2

Acsh results

Back 2

The naive participant gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time.

75% conformed on at least one trial.

Front 3

Acsh evaluation

Back 3

-Other factors may have affected the results such as poor eyesight.

-Results dependent on culture and time. Eg. Perrin and Spencer repeated this in 1980's and found less conformity.

-Used artificial materials so low external validity.

Front 4

Variations of Acsh's experiment

Back 4

1. Bigger the number of confederates, the more people conformed up until a point. With 1 other person, conformity was 3%.

Two others- 13%.

Three or more-32%

2. Presence of an ally. Conformity dropped to 5%.

3. Task difficulty- Conformity increased as the difference between the lines reduced.

Front 5

Milgram (1963)

Back 5

Investigated the situational factors in obedience. Used 40 male participants aged 20-50. They drew rigged lots so participant was always teacher and confederate was a learner. Each time the learner got something wrong, teacher gave them an electric shock, increasing voltage each time (15v to 450v).

If teacher hesitated, the experimenter gave verbal prods.

Front 6

Milgram results

Back 6

All went to 300v but 5 people stopped there.

65% went to the fatal shock of 450v.

In the debrief, 84% said they were glad they were involved.

Front 7

Milgram evaluation

Back 7

-Controlled lab experiment therefore controlled variables and is repeatable.

-Ethical issues as the participants were deceived and the right to withdraw was compromised due to the experimenter trying to stop them.

-Orne and Holland (1968) said that the the participants knew the shocks were real therefore behaved the way they did.

Front 8

Variations of Milgram's experiment

Back 8

1. Change of location to run down building:47.5%

2. Teacher and learner in same room:40%.

3. Teacher forces learner's hand onto plate: 30%.

4. Experimenter gave orders by phone:20.5%

5. Experimenter played by 'member of the public: 20%

6. Disobedient confederate joined them: 10%

Front 9

Zimbardo (1971)

Back 9

Created a mock prison and asked for volunteers who were then tested to see if they were emotionally stable. They were randomly assigned to prisoner or guard. Prisoners were arrested in homes and guards were given uniforms and reflective sunglasses.

The prisoners were referred to by a number and had to follow 16 rules.

Front 10

Zimbardo results

Back 10

The study stopped after 6 days (originally meant to be 14) due to the emotional and physical health of prisoners.

One prisoner went on hunger strike and they found that 90% of the prisoner's conversations were about prison life.

Front 11

Zimbardo evaluation

Back 11

-Ethical issues as they lacked proper informed consent and Zimbardo acted as a superintendant rather than experimenter when participants asked to leave.

-Lacked realism as participants were just acting and based behaviour on other film characters. Also lacks problems in real prisoners like bullying from other prisoners.

-Haslam (2001) repeated the experiment and prisoners took control of the prison which contradicts Zimbardo's results.

Front 12

Moscovici (1969)

Back 12

A group of 6 people viewed 36 slides which were blue/green. Confederates said that slides were green each time, in another condition they were inconsistent and a control group had no confederates.

Front 13

Moscovici findings

Back 13

Consistent minority influence caused real participants to say slides were green 8.42%.

Inconsistent said green 1.25%

Control group said green 0.25%

Front 14

Moscovici evaluation

Back 14

-Small sample as only 6 people in each group.

-Used artificial materials therefore no external validity

-Controlled lab experiment therefore reliable results.

Front 15

Bickman (1974)

Back 15

Showed the power of uniform in obedience. Had confederates dressed in either a suit, a milkman's outfit and a security guard outfit. He had them ask the public for a coin or to pick up litter.

Front 16

Bickman results

Back 16

People were twice as likely to obey the person dressed as a security guard than the person dressed in a suit.

Front 17

Adorno (1950)

Back 17

Investigated the causes of obedient personality in a study of more than 2000 middle class white Americans.

He used the F scale to measure their authoritarian personality.

Front 18

Adorno results

Back 18

People with authoritarian personality identified with strong people and were conscious of their own status, showing excessive respect to those of a higher status.

Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.

Front 19

Adorno evaluation

Back 19

-Link between obedience and authoritarian personality is just a correlation. There may be another cause such as lower levels of education.

-Milgram found that it the situation caused obedience eg. all participants went to 350v however some of them were classified as having an authoritarian personality.

-A limited explanation for why so many people obeyed Nazi rulers. Social identity is a better explanation eg. a lot of German people identified with the Nazi state.

Front 20

Nolan (2008)

Back 20

Showed social change. They hung messages on the front doors of houses in California every week for 1 month to try and reduce energy usage. They did this by telling them that other people were doing it. They found significant decreases in energy usage.

Front 21

Sheridan and King (1972)

Back 21

Conducted a similar experiment to Milgram where real shocks were given to puppies. 100% of females and 54% of males delivered a fatal shock.