Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONFORMITY TO SOCIAL ROLES (THE STANFORD PRISON…

- - - - Asch (1956) increased task difficulty by making the comparison lines similar to each other, finding that when he did so, participants were more likely to conform to wrong answers, thus demonstrating the task difficulty on conformity.
- - - - :check:
        Strengths
        Researchers had some control over variables: Emotionally stable participants were recruited and randomly assigned the roles of guard or prisoner.
        Control increases the study's internal validity. We can be more confident in drawing conclusions about the influences of social roles on behaviour.
      - :red_cross:
        Weakness
        Lack of realism: One guard based his role on a character from the film Cool Hand Luke. Prisoners rioted because they thought that is what real prisoners did.
- - - - :check:
        Strengths
        Good external validity: Milgram argued that the lab-based relationship between experimenter and participant reflected wider real-life authority relationships.
        Hofling et al. (1966) found that levels of obedience in nurses on a hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21 out of 22 obeyed). Therefore, the process in Milgram's study is generalisable.
      - :red_cross:
        Weakness
        Ethical issues: *Baumrind (1964)* criticised Milgram's deceptions. Participants believed the allocation of roles were randomly assigned, but instead were fixed. The most significant form of deception was that the participants thought the electric shocks were real. Baumrind objected because deception is a betrayal of trust that damages the reputation of psychologists and their research. Deception of participants may also make them less likely to volunteer for future research.