defined conformity as a change in a persons behaviour due to real or imagined group pressure (2011)
Aronson
1 of 35
found 3 types of social influence (C, I, I) (1958)
Kelman
2 of 35
explain social influence using NSI and ISI (1995)
Deutsch and Gerard
3 of 35
Studied conformity on an unambiguous task (1951) supporting NSI
Asch
4 of 35
Investigated conformity to social roles (1973)
Zimbardo
5 of 35
Supports ISI by finding that uncertainty of own answer increases conformity (2006)
Lucas
6 of 35
found nAffiliators are more likely to conform showing social influence does not consider individual factors (1967)
McGhee and Teevan
7 of 35
Repeated Asch's study and found just 1/369 conformed (1980)
Perrin and Spencer
8 of 35
Says Zimbardos study was the most realistic it could've been (2019)
McDermott
9 of 35
Argue social identity theory being needed for guards to conform in Zimbardo's study as only 1/3 behaved brutally (2006)
Reicher and Haslam
10 of 35
Argue zimbardos study created demand characteristics as it was not realistic (1975)
Banuazizi and Movahedi
11 of 35
studied situational variables of obedience (1963)
Milgram
12 of 35
studied the authoritarian personality (1950)
adorno
13 of 35
repeated milgrams study using real shocks on puppies (1972)
sheridan and king
14 of 35
found that 21/22 nurses obeyed an order to give a fatal dose of an unknown drug given by an unknown doctor (1966)
Hoffling
15 of 35
repeated milgrams study and found near identical results (2012)
Beavouis
16 of 35
say that at least 75% of participants did not believe shocks in milgrams study were real (1968)
orne and holland
17 of 35
Supports milgram's situational factors (uniform) by showing that a security guard with no proven authority is more likely to be obeyed than a milkman (1974)
bickman
18 of 35
Found cross cultural reliability in milgrams situational factors by repeating the studies in holland (1986)
Meeus and Raaijmakers
19 of 35
says milgrams studies are socially sensitive as they can be seen as offering excuses for nazi soldiers (1998)
Mandel
20 of 35
Found that people with high f-scale scores were more likely to obey in repeats of milgrams study (1966)
Milgram and elms
21 of 35
says the f-scale is flawed as it only looks into right wing authoritarianism and not left-wing (1954)
Christie and Jahoda
22 of 35
theorised the locus of control (1966)
Rotter
23 of 35
Found that social support made pregnant teens more likely to resist social influence to smoke (2006)
Albrecht
24 of 35
Found groups were less likely to obey unjust orders than individuals (1982)
gamson
25 of 35
Repeated milgrams study and found high external locus of control correlated with high obedience (1987)
Holland
26 of 35
Found that people over time have become more external in their LOC yet more obedient (2004)
Twenge
27 of 35
Says the locus of control may only effect unfamiliar situations (1982)
Rotter
28 of 35
Argues flexibility as the most important factor in minority influence (1986)
Nameth
29 of 35
Studied minority influence on an unambiguous task (1969)
Moscovicci
30 of 35
Found similar results to moscovicci across 100 other cultures (2003)
wood
31 of 35
Says gradual commitment builds up social change over time (2007)
zimbardo
32 of 35
found that NSI causes social change (2006)
Nolan
33 of 35
Says deeper processing shows disagreement with the minority (1987)
mackie
34 of 35
found many people resist social change as it creates negative labels (2013)
Bashir
35 of 35
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
found 3 types of social influence (C, I, I) (1958)
Back
Kelman
Card 3
Front
explain social influence using NSI and ISI (1995)
Back
Card 4
Front
Studied conformity on an unambiguous task (1951) supporting NSI
Comments
No comments have yet been made