Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Social Influence Evaluations, Explains cultural differences :check: …

- - - - Limited Application :red_cross:
        Participants were all American men
        
        Research suggests women may be more conformist, due to concern about social acceptance
        
        US = Individualists. Studies in collectivist cultures showed higher conformity levels
        Means Asch's findings tell us little about conformity in women and collectivists
      - Counterpoint :red_cross:
        Lucas et al study found it more complex than suggested
        
        Participants with high confidence in maths conformed less than those with low confidence
        Shows individual factors can influence the variables which weren't researched
- - - - Counterpoint :red_cross:
        Unclear whether NSI or ISI is the reason in real life studies
        
        Asch found conformity is reduced with a dissenting ppt added
        
        Can reduce NSI (social support), can reduce ISI (the provide alternative information)
        Hard to separate them as both likely interlink in real life situations
      - Individual differences in NSI :red_cross:
        NSI doesn't always predict conformity
        
        nAffiliators - have a strong need for affiliation and are more concerned with being liked
        
        In a study, students who were nAffiliators were more likely to conform
        Shows NSI is more prominent in some than others and some individual differences cannot be fully explained
- - - - Exaggerates power roles :red_cross:
        Zimbardo may have influenced the power of social roles on behaviour
        
        Only 1/3 of guards behaved brutally, another 1/3 tried to apply rules fairly, the rest helped prisoners
        
        The sympathised, offered cigarettes and reinforced privileges
        Suggests Zimbardo overexaggerated conformity to social roles and minimised influence of dispositional factors
- - - - Research support :check:
        Findings were replicated in a French documentary
        
        Ppts were in a 'game' where they were paid to give "electric shocks" (ordered by presenter) to other "participants" in front of an audience.
        
        80% delivered the maximum shock (460V) to a seemingly unconscious man. Behaviour was similar to Milgram - nail biting, nervous laughter etc.
        Supports Milgram's findings
- - - - Counterpoint :red_cross:
        Replications of research aren't very 'cross-cultural'
        
        Psychologists identified only two replications between 1968 and 1985 in India and Jordan - two culturally different countries from US
        
        Other countries (Spain, Australia, Scotland) are similar to the US
        It may not be correct to say the findings apply to most cultures
      - Low internal validity :red_cross:
        Participants may have been aware the procedure was fake
        
        Psychologists criticised the study and argued it may be more apparent with the extra manipulation of the variable variations
        
        Uniform variation was recognised (by Milgram included) as so complex that ppts may have worked out the truth
        Its unclear whether the findings are due to the variables or due to demand characteristics
- - - - Political Bias :red_cross:
        The F-Scale only measures towards extreme right wing ideology
        
        Psychologists argued the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation, while extreme left and right have a lot in common
        
        Both emphasis the importance of complete obedience to political authority
        Means Adorno's theory is not a good explanation for obedience across the whole spectrum
- - - - Counterpoint :red_cross:
        Research studies make clear distinctions between majority and minority for control
        
        Real world situations more complicated. Majorities usually have more power and status
        
        Minorities are committed as they face hostile opposition, usually absent from research
        Findings are limited in telling us about real situations
      - Artificial tasks :red_cross:
        Tasks involved are just as artificial as Asch's study
        
        Research doesn't represent how minorities attempt to change majority behaviour in real life
        
        In cases like jury decision and political campaigning, outcomes are a significantly more important
        Findings of studies lack external validity and are limited in explaining how it works in real life situations
- - - - Role for deeper processing :red_cross:
        Psychologists disagree with idea that people convert due to minority influence
        
        Argue majority influence can also trigger deep processing. We like to think others share our views
        
        When we find majority believes different, we are forced to think about their arguments
        Means the central element of minority influence has been challenged, casting doubt on validity