Psychology Unit 2- Social Influence Studies

Aim- to see if people could be influenced by others to give an answer they knew was incorrect

Method- participants were shown 4 sets of lines and asked which line was the same as a test line. pariticipants were in a group with confederates who gave incorrect answers. when tested alone they rarely gave incorrect answers

Results- in 32% of the group trails the participant gave the same wrong answer as the confederates. 74% of the participants gave at least one incorrect answer

Conclusion- participants gave incorrect answers because they did not want to go against the group. this i demonstrates conformity

Evaluation- labatory experiment has a lot of control over variables but lacks ecological validity. the use of confederates is deceptive so could be considered unethical

Aim- to see if people would be more likely to follow an order if it came from someone in uniform

Method- he asked confederates to dress as a security guard or in a casual jacket. they asked people in a park to pick up litter

Results- 80% of people obeyed the 'security guard' but only 40% obeyed the person not in unniform

Conclusion- wearing uniform increases the sense that someone is an authority figure

Evaluation- has ecological validity as in a natural setting. variables harder to control.

Aim- to see how far people would follow unreasonable orders

Method- participants were 'teachers' and the confederates were 'learners'. the participants had to give shocks to the confederate every time they gave an incorrect answer on the test. everytime the voltage of the shocks increased. the participant pretended to be in pain and eventually fell silent. if the participant wanted to stop the experimenter said 'the experiment requires that you continue'.

Results-all of the participants gave shocks up to 300 volts. 65% went all the way to 450 volts.

Conclusion- people are prepared to obey extraordinary orders if they believe the person instructing them is in a position of authority

Evaluation- lacks ecological validity. unethical as participants were decieved and put into distressing situation.

socialisation- we are taught from childhood to obey authority figures

gradual commitment- people struggle to draw a line as to how far they'll go once they've started

buffers-participants cannot see the victim so they are shielded from the consequences of their actions

not feeling responsible- if they are doing it on behalf of someone they do not feel that they are responsible for the consequences

Aim- to see the effect that hiding someones identity has on the size of electric shock they are prepared to give someone

Method- female university students put into two groups and played the role of the teacher. the first group wore lab coats with hoods to cover their faces and the other group wore normal clothes with name tags. 

Results- the shocks given by the first group were double the size of the shocks given by the second group.

Conclusion-when being able to hide their identity people are more likely to act in a cruel way as they're anonymous they will not facse the consequences.

Evaluation- unethical psychological harm and deception

• being able to hide one's identity
• wearing a uniform
• being part of an identifiable group

applications: to prevent the situations in which people can be anonymous CCTV in place and as people know they can be identified they are less likely to act antisocially

implications: people are made to wear uniform in school so that it is harder for them to act independantly and it is earier to be controlled set of rules

Aim- to see whether working in a group effects how much effort participants put into a task

Method- participants were asked to clap and cheer as loud as they could alone and in groups of up to 6 people. each participant wore headphones so they could not hear eachother

Results- the larger the group size the less noise the participants made

Conclusion- people put less effort into doing something when others are contributing to the task than when they are the only one

Evaluation-all of the participants were of the same culture so cannot be generalised. 

Aim- to see if people are less likely to react in an emergency if there are others present

Method- participants sat in a room alone or in a group of 3 while completing a questionnaire. while doing this smoke began to fill the room

Results-75% of the participants who were sitting alone went to tell someone within 6 minutes, but only 38% of those in a group did

Conclusion-if there are other people around you are less likely to react in an emergency

Evaluation- labatory experiment so lacks ecological validity. supports the diffusion of responsibility idea. 

conformity: in a jury is 11 believe that the defenant is guilty the twelth will agree because it is hard to disagree with the majority

obedience: explains why the space shuttle challenger was allower to explode. engineers noticed faults but were persuaded by authority figures to not say anything.

social loafing: in team sports some players may do less running because they know there are other people on their team

bystander intervention: when james bulger was abducted nobody intervened when they say a baby crying whilst being dragged through the streets