Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence (Conformity (Asch's study (AO1 (Aim: See how people…

- - - - Aim: See how people respond to group pressure where the answer is evidently wrong
      - Method: Naive participants shown 3 lines and have to identify which matched to the other line. The confederates would intentionally get the answer wrong despite it being a clear and obvious answer.
      - Results: 75 percent conformed at least once in the study and a wrong answer was given 36.8% of the time.
      - Conclusions: People are influenced by group pressure even when involved in a task with a clear-cut answer. However Asch concluded the results showed a high-level of independence as most gave the correct answer the majority of the time.
    - - Para 1
        
        Point: One weakness is the results may only be relevant to 1950s America
        
        Explanation: The 1950s were an especially conformist time in America. People were scared to behave differently from the majority. Another study in the UK showed just one conforming in 396 trials
        
        Conclusion: This suggests that the Asch effect is only relevant to certain cultures and is not consistent over time.
      - Para 2
        
        Point: Another weakness of this research is that the task and situation are artificial
        
        Explanation: Being asked to judge the length of a line with a group doesn't reflect everyday situations where people conform. This might also mean people are less willing to conform when the consequences are more important. In addition the group did not replicate being in a group of friends as they were strangers
        
        Conclusion: This means the results lack ecological validity as they may not generalise to everyday situations where the consequences of conformity are probably more important.
  - - - Definition
        
        Explanations in terms of the social world around you e.g friends. family, teammates, colleagues e.g
      - Factors
        
        Group Size
        
        Anonymity
        
        Task Difficulty
    - - Definition
        
        Explanations of Behaviour based on personality
      - Factors
        
        Locus of Control
        
        The sense we have of what directs us in our lives
        
        External Locus of Control
        
        Believe it's mainly matter of luck or outside forces
        
        Internal Locus of Control
        
        Believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them
        
        Expertise
- - - - Aim: To investigate whether a normal person would give somebody a potentially lethal electric shock if told to do so by an authority figure
      - Method
        
        Participant told study for memory
        
        Confederate always ended up as 'learner'
        
        Naïve participant always ended up as 'teacher'.
        
        Participants told they can leave at any time
        
        Learner strapped into char in other room and wired up with electrodes for shocks that weren't actually real
        
        Learner gets 'shock' given by teacher for incorrect answer.
        
        Shocks go through 30 levels from 15v to 450v
        
        at 300v learner pounded on wall and gave no response to next question
        
        When asking for guidance, teacher told to continue
      - Results: No-one stopped before 300 volts. 12.5 percent stopped at 300 volts. 65 percent continued to 450 volts
      - Conclusions: Obedience has little to do with disposition.
        
        Factors influencing obedience
        
        Location of the study
        
        Participant didn't want to disrupt the investigation
        
        Novel situation for participant who didn't know how to behave
    - - Para 1
        
        Point: A weakness is the participants may not have believed the shocks were real
        
        Explanation: It's possible participants thought it was unlikely for such lethal shocks be delivered. Tapes of the recordings show suspicion in some participants voices about the shocks
        
        Most of Milgram's participants realised that the shocks were faked but went along with it to not spoil
      - Para 2
        
        Point: Same results have been found in other studies
        
        Explanation: In one experiment participants were asked to give real shocks to a puppy. 54% of males and 100% of females did so
        
        Milgram's results were not faked. He claimed 70 percent of his participants believed the shocks were real
  - - - Agency theory proposes that an individual sometimes acts as an agent for someone else
      - They act as an agent as they assume that the person giving order is taking responsibility
      - Agentic state
        
        Where they act on behalf of someone else and follow orders "blindly" as they feel no personal responsibility for their actions
      - Autonomous state
        
        where they behave according to their own principles and feel responsible for their actions
    - - Agentic shift: Change from autonomous to agentic state
      - Milgram proposed this shift occurs when someone perceives someone else as a figure of authority
    - - Certain people have more authority than others because of their position in the social hierarchy
      - e.g younger children obey older children, children obey their parents, parents obey the courts, the courts obey the government
    - - Milgram suggested that proximity increases the 'moral strain' that a person feels, which leads to increased sense of personal responsibility
    - - Para 1
        
        Point: One strength of this explanation is that there is research support
        
        One investigation showed students a film of the study and asked them to identify who was responsible. The students blamed the experimentor
        
        Therefore the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting agency theory
      - Para 2
        
        Point: One weakness is it doesn't explain why there's not 100% obedience
        
        In the study 35% didn't fully obey. When Milgram interviewed some of his participants he found various reasons for the lack of obedience
        
        This means that social factors cannot fully explain obedience