Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
16 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Think that we are only influenced by others in ambiguous situations when we see ourselves as sharing characteristics with them. Thus we are much more likely to internalise the opinion of friends than strangers. (Explanations of conformity) |
Abrams (1990) |
|
|
Replicated Asch's line experiment in Japan, found that minority participants answered incorrectly 28% of the time. Thus supporting majority influence hypothesis. (Majority influence) |
Mori and Arai (2010) |
|
|
When task difficulty was increased in the line experiment, it was found that participants were more likely to conform to wrong answers proving task difficulty affects conformity |
Asch (1956) |
|
|
When male and female participants were asked to shock a puppy every time it responds to a command incorrectly. 54% of males and 100% of females obeyed to administer 450 volt shocks. (Obedience) |
Sheridan and King (1972) |
|
|
When authoritarian figure was not in the same room, obedience declined form 62.5% to 20.5%. When the authoritarian figure left the room ppts shifted from an agentic state to an autonomous state. (explanations of obedience) |
Milgram (1974) |
|
|
Found that ppts were more concerned with following procedure than the 'harm' they were causing the 'learner.' In this way, they could be sen to be doing their duty and thus recognizing the legitimacy of authority (explanations of obedience) |
Milgram (1963) |
|
|
Found when the 'teacher' (ppt) and the 'learner' (confederate) were in the same room obedience declined from 62.5% to 40%. Thus providing proximity is a variable affecting obedience (Situational variables affecting obedience) |
Milgram (1974) |
|
|
Found when conducting the experiment in a rundown apartment block instead of an established institution obedience fell from 62.5% to 47.5%. Location affects obedience. (Situational factors affecting obedience) |
Milgram (1973) |
|
|
Found that when ordering people on a New York street to complete a generic order, e.g pick up rubbish, 38% obeyed when a security guard asked them to do it but only 19% obeyed when asked by a civilian. Uniform affects obedience. (Situational factors affecting obedience) |
Bickman (1974) |
|
|
Found that participants who were highly obedience in Milgrams study scored highly on the Adorno F-scale. Thus supporting the link between authoritarian personalities and obedience. (Situational variables affecting obedience) |
Elms and Milgram (1966) |
|
|
Found that when 'models' were disobedience and brke the law by jay-walking ppts were more likely to jay-walk as well. (Explanations of resistance to social influence) |
Mullen (1990) |
|
|
When performing a meta-analysis on LoC and conformity, found that those with an internal LoC were less easily persuaded and less likely to conform. (Explanations of resistance to social influence) |
Avtgis (1998) |
|
|
Found that those with high external LoC were more likely to obey unethical authority figures. (Explanations of resistance to social influence) |
Jones and Kavanagh (1996) |
|
|
Found that new comers in a ground were more likely to conform with views from someone with a high status in a group than someone of low status. |
Richardson (2009) |
|
|
Obedience declines when participants are encouraged to question the motives of the authority figure issuing the order. Therefore, Systematic processes play a role in obedience. (Factors involved in resistance to obedience) |
Taylor (1997) |
|
|
Found that when ordering people on a New York street to complete a generic order, e.g pick up rubbish, 38% obeyed when a security guard asked them to do it but only 19% obeyed when asked by a civilian. Uniform affects obedience.
(Situational factors affecting obedience) |
Bickman (1974) |
