Social Influence 3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating ? PsychologyConformityASAQA Created by: Catherine SarahCreated on: 01-06-17 04:32 Lucas et al (2006) Support for informational social influence - different ability students answering maths questions; poor ability = more likely to conform. 1 of 36 Perrin and Spencer (1980) Against informational social influence - little conforming for engineering students (1/396). 2 of 36 McGhee and Teevan (1967) Against normative social influence - students with high need for affiliation = conform. 3 of 36 Asch (1951) Tested conformity, line comparison, 123 american students, confederates. 4 of 36 Neto (1995) Against Asch - women might be more conformist (care for social relationships). 5 of 36 Bond and Smith (1996) Against Asch - conformity higher in collectivist cultures. 6 of 36 Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment, conforming to social roles - volunteers, psychologically tested, random allocation, dress up. 7 of 36 Banuazizi and Movahedi (1975) Against Zimbardo - lack realism/ artifical - based on stereotypes. 8 of 36 Fromm (1973) Against Zimbardo - exaggerated power of situation & excluded role of personality factors = dispositional influences. 9 of 36 Milgram (1963) Testing obedience - 40 males volunteers, deceived, experimenter confederate, teacher/students, shocks. 10 of 36 Orne and Holland (1968) Against Milgram - went high volts because they didn't believe it's real. 11 of 36 Perry (2013) Against Milgram - listened to tapes and participants doubted the shocks. 12 of 36 Sheridan and King (1972) Against Perry (2013) - real shocks on puppies and they went full 'fatal' volts. 13 of 36 Hofling et al (1966) For Milgram - nurses obeying to doctors for illegal medicine. 14 of 36 Le Jeu de la Mort (2010) For Milgram - game show. 15 of 36 Baumrind (1964) Against Milgram - ethics; psychological damage (seizures). 16 of 36 Bickman (1974) For Milgram Variations - field experiment, 3 confederates (suit, milman, guard). 17 of 36 Miranda et al (1981) For Milgram Variations - cross cultural research in Spain. 18 of 36 Smith and Bond (1998) Against Milgram Variations/ Miranda et al - support done in Western society, not generalisable. 19 of 36 Blass and Schmitt (2001) For agentic state - showed Milgram's study and identify who's responsible for harm; blame experimenter 20 of 36 Mandel (1998) Against agentic state - doesn't explain Nazi soldiers killing without orders. 21 of 36 Kilham and Mann (1974) For legitimacy of authority - replicated Milgram in Australia. 22 of 36 Mantell (1971) For legitimacy of authority - replicated Milgram in Gemany. 23 of 36 Adorno et al (1950) Proposed /tested causes of obedient personality to measure authoritarian personality - f scale, 2000 americans. 24 of 36 Milgram and Elms (1966) For authoritarian personality - interviews of obedient people to link obedience & authority. 25 of 36 Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) Against Milgram and Elms - only correlation = other factors = eg. education level. 26 of 36 Christie and Jahoda (1954) Against authoritarian personality - political bias (extreme f scale ideology). 27 of 36 Greenstein (1969) Against authoritarian personality - methodological problems; f-scale works in one line = acquiesces bias. 28 of 36 Allen and Levine (1971) For resistance to conformity - decrease in conformity when dissenter present in Asch-type study. 29 of 36 Gamson et al (1982) For resistance to obedience - found higher resistance than Milgram when in a social support group (more than one confederate). 30 of 36 Rotter (1966) Proposed locus of control; what directs events in our lives. 31 of 36 Holland (1967) For Rotter (1966) - repeated Milgram to measure internal/external = internal greater resistance. 32 of 36 Twenge et al (2004) Against Rotter (1966) - 40 year long study = people become more resistant to obedience + external. 33 of 36 Moscovici et al For minority influence - consistent minority opinion = more effective. 34 of 36 Wood et al (1994) For minority influence - meta analysis 100 studies = consistent minorities = most influential. 35 of 36 Martin et al (2003) For depth of mindset to minority influence - minority needs to be processed for it to work. 36 of 36
Comments
No comments have yet been made