Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A biased sample, therefore not generalisable to the majority
        
        low population validity
        
        self selecting sample
        --> specific type of person applies to those types of experiments
      - Ethically not able to replicate the study
        --> was an attempt in 2001, BBC Prison Study
        --> criticised the SPE.. showed h
        that Zimbardo encouraged the behaviour, rather than it being completely natural
      - Iraq 2003
        --> US army abused the prisoners
        --> Zimbardo was present
        --> shows that we do conform to social roles
        --> situational factors are impactful
      - Random allocation
        --> removes bias
        Investigator effects?
        --> Zimbardo's demand characteristics due to his role as lead researcher + superintendent
      - The 6 key points
        -consent
        -avoid deception
        -confidentiality
        -debrief
        -withdraw
        -privacy
        In the SPE.. 1. deception, withdraw (?), privacy, protection (psychological)
- - - - proximity (Hoffling's obedient nurses)
        21/22 were wiling to administrate a illegal dosage to a patient due to the instructions being from an authorative figure
        
        location
        
        uniform (Bushman)
        --> police woman (72%)
        --> business woman (52%)
        --> beggar (48%)
      - Agency theory:
        acting as an 'agent' for someone else.. the actions they are committing are on behalf of somebody else and therefore feel less responsible/guilty
        This is called the 'agentic state'
        Mostly, individuals are in a autonimous state, a state of independence where the person chooses how to behave and the free will to choose his/her actions
        HOWEVER, when people are in the presence of an authoravtive fugyre, the switch from the autonimous stae to the agentic stae
        This is called the 'agentic shift'
      - Legitimacy of authority:
        For the agentic state to take place, the participant must believe in the authorative figure
        society is structured into hierachy, police officers, parents, teachers etc
        ALL which are believed to be legitimate
        We believe them as we believe if not listened to, we recieve punishment
        SUMMARY: for orders to be legitimate, they must be given in a institutional structure (office, university etc)
- - - - resisting CONFORMITY (Asch)
        when another confederate gave the correct answer, this is how Asch researched the effect of ss
        --> conformity levels dropped from 35% - 5.5%
        social support breaks the unanimous position of the majority
      - resisting OBEDIENCE (Milgram)
        he introduced two other participants (confederates)
        
        150V 2. 210V
        --> reduced levels of obedience by 10%
        social support challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure
    - - EVALUATION
        Holland
        --> resistance to obedience
        conducted a replication of Milgram's original study
        measured whether the participants had internal or external locus of control
        FINDINGS: 37% internal 23% external
        SHOWS: internals show greater resistance,, increases the validity of the LOC explanation
        Spector
        looked at LOC scores and ISI + NSI was measured for 157 undergraduate students
        FINDINGS: significant correlation between LOC and NSI
        --> externals being more likely to conform to this form of social influence than internals
        (this relationship was not found between LOC + ISI)
        SHOWS: LOC may only be useful for explaining NSI
- - - - Harsh, punitive upbringing
        little love, much punishment
        
        Fear of parents
        
        excessively respectful of authorative figures
        
        Hatred of parents
        
        hate + anger displaced onto others
    - - Strengths:
        Milgram + Elms
        
        Procedure:
        selected 20 'obedient' and 20 'defiant' participants
        --> each completed MMPI scale
        they were also asked a selection on open ended questions about their relationship with their patients
        
        FINDINGS:
        with the MMPI variables, there was little difference between each group of participants
        obedient participants were less close to their father when growing up
      - Weaknesses:
        situational factors are more important?
        there is no cause + effect between obedience and the authoritarian personality
        social desirability bias (F-Scale)