Social influence
- Created by: Allypally1999
- Created on: 03-04-18 11:20
View mindmap
- Social Influence
- Obedience- Milgram
- 1963
- Procedure
- Confederate 'randomly' selected as learner, participant was teacher
- Experimenter with white lab coat, confederate
- Learner in other room, strapped to chair, electrodes
- Word pairs-incorrect answer is punished by shock
- Standardised prompts if teacher protests
- Findings
- 65% continued to 450V
- None stopped before 300V
- Qualitative- participants stressed: sweating, shaking, stuttering, etc
- Some asked about responsibility-agentic state
- 40 male American volunteers, aged 20-50
- Population
- Newspaper ad- study into memory
- Deception, lack of informed consent
- Ethics
- Deception, lack of informed consent
- Psychological harm?
- Debriefed
- Validity
- Population
- Ecological
- Holocaust
- Demand characteristics? What if guessed shocks weren't real?
- Hoffling et al
- 22 nurses given instruction over phone to deliver overdose of drug
- 21 obeyed
- Ecological
- Holocaust
- 22 nurses given instruction over phone to deliver overdose of drug
- Variations
- Location
- Yale uni is respected
- Authority linked to location- experimenter has power within lab
- In run down office, 48% went to 450V
- Uniform
- Legitimate authority
- When experimenter replaced by citizen (plain clothes), only 20% continued to 450V
- Proximity
- When learner not seen/heard, 100% went to 450V
- When in same room, 40% went to 450V
- When teacher had to physically shock learner, 30% full obedience
- If teacher instructed via phone, 20% went to 450V
- Some gave lower shocks than instructed, some pretended to shock
- Location
- Authoritarian personality
- Adorno at al
- Conventional
- Traditional values
- Aggression
- Belief in hierarchy
- Elms & Milgram- obedient participants are more authoritarian than 'defiant' people
- Fascism scale
- Authoritarian personality
- Adorno at al
- Conventional
- Traditional values
- Aggression
- Belief in hierarchy
- Locus of control
- Rotter
- Internal feels responsible-unlikely to obey
- External doesn't feel responsible, likely to obey
- Minority influence- Moscovici
- Consistency
- Synchronic (within group)
- Diachronic (over time)
- Commitment
- SNCC sit ins
- Bus boycott
- Flexibility
- Suffragists/ getts
- 1969
- 172 female student participants
- Groups of 6- 4 pps, 2 confederates
- Procedure
- Shown 36 slides, asked if blue/green- answer aloud
- Consistent minority- said green in 36 trials
- 8.4% answers incorrect
- Consistency
- Majority influence: Asch
- 1951, 1955
- Variations
- Unanimity- dissenting confederate reduced conformity by 25%
- Group size- optimum is 3 confederates
- Task difficulty- NSI when easy, ISI when harder
- Findings
- 36.8% conformity
- 75% conformed at least once
- Procedure
- 1 naive pp, 6-8 confederates per group
- PP sat last/second to last
- 18 trials, 12 critical
- 123 participants
- Male, American, engineering undergrads
- 1 naive pp, 6-8 confederates per group
- Validity
- Temporal/ecological- 1950s America
- Red scare
- Perrin & Spencer- 1980s UK
- 1/396 conformed
- Smith & Bond- collectivist cultures conform more
- Lacks mundane realism
- Population
- Neto 1995- women conform more than men
- Temporal/ecological- 1950s America
- Ethics- no informed consent, deception
- Obedience- Milgram
Comments
No comments have yet been made