Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Social Influence Studies (Explanation of conformity evaluations.…
Social Influence Studies
-
Conformity research
Asch
Findings:
- ppt answered wrong 36.8 %.
- 25% didn't conform.
- 75% conformed at least once.
Variations
-
Task difficulty: Stimulus & comparison lines more similar, conformity increases.
Group size: 3 confederate - 31.8% conformity, more made little difference.
Procedure:
- Shown standard & comparison lines of which one is same length as standard.
- 123 male american graduates.
- Each participant with 6-8 confederates.
- Confederate answered correct on first few trials & wrong after that.
- 18 trials, 12 critical trials (confederates answered wrong).
-
Zimbardo
Procedures:
- Volunteer sample.
- Basement at Stanford university.
- Students deemed emotionally stable through tests.
- Randomly assigned 'guard' & 'prisoner'.
- 'Prisoners' arrested at home, blinded, strip-searched, deloused & issued uniform & number.
- Prisoner's daily routine regulated, follows 16 rules enforced by guards.
- Guards have uniform, wooden club, handcuff, keys & mirror shades, complete control over prisoners.
Findings:
- Stopped after 6 days instead of 14.
- Prisoner rebelled within 2 days against harsh treatment.
- Guards retaliated by playing prisoners off against each other, harassing constantly & highlighting difference in social roles.
- Prisoner became depressed & subdued while guards became violent & aggressive.
Evaluations
Control over variables, e.g. selection of stable participants, increases internal validity.
Participants basing roles on stereotype, e.g. one guard claiming to base role on character from 'cool hand luke'.
Zimbardo highlighted that situation real to participants, qualitative data showed 90% of participant conversations of prison life.
Zimbardo may have exaggerated situational & minimised dispositional factors, e.g. 1/3 of guards applied fair rules.
Obedience research
Milgram
Procedure:
- 40 male participants between 20 & 50 years.
- Jobs ranged from skilled to unskilled.
- Paid $4.50.
- Rigged draw for role - 'Mr Wallace', a confederate, always the learner & participant always teacher.
- 'Confederate 'experimenter' in lab coat.
- Learner strapped in chair in another room with electrodes, teacher gave increasingly severe shocks with each wrong answer.
- Starts at 50V (labeled slight shock) & up to 450V (danger-severe shock).
Evaluations
-
Low internal validity
Participants might not have believed set up - Gina Perry listened to tapes & reported many expressing doubt of shocks.
Although Sheridan & King - conducted similar study with shocks to real puppy, 54% male & 100% female delivered 'fatal shock'.
Supporting replication
Le Jeu de la Mort (The Gamf of Death):
- Replicated Milgram's original study.
- Participants paid to give fake shocks to confederate by host.
- 80% gave maximum shock (460V) to unconscious man.
- Behaviour almost identical to Milgram.
Findings:
- No ppt stopped below 300V.
- 12.5% at 300V.
- 65% to highest level.
- Observations of participants showed extreme tension.
- 'Sweat, tremble, stutter, lip-biting...'
- 3 even had 'full-blown seizures'.
Variations
Location:
- Run-down building instead of prestigious university, obedience to 47.5%.
Uniform:
- 'Experimenter' called away & replaced by confederate in everyday clothes, obedience rate to 20%.
Proximity:
- Teacher & learner in same room, obedience down to 40%.
- Teacher forces learner's hand onto an electroshock plate, obedience to 30%.
Evaluation
Many participants may have realised the manipulation, e.g. when experimenter called away, therefore lacks internal validity.
Findings replicated in other cultures & genders - Miranda et al:
- Obedience rate of over 90% in Spanish students.
- Though most replications in western cultures.
Bickman:
- 3 confederates in either jacket & tie, milkman's outfit or security guard uniform.
- Confederate asked passerby tasks, e.g. pick up the litter.
- Obedience rate doubles from jack & tie to police uniform.
-
-
Minority influence
Moscovici:
- Group of 6.
- 36 blue slides of varying intensity.
- 2 confederates that consistently said slides were green.
- Ppt gave same answer on 8.42% of trials & 32% gave same answer at least once.
- 2nd group exposed to inconsistency, agreement down to 1.25%.
- 3rd group no confederate, wrong on 0.25%.
Evaluations
Martin et al:
- Participants exposed to both majority & minority agreeing with a view.
- Then exposed to conflicting view.
- Participants less willing to change mind if exposed to minority influence.
Artificial task, therefore lacks external validity.
Wood et al:
- Meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies.
- Consistent minorities most influential.
-
-