SOCIAL INFLUENCE
EXPLANATION EVALUATION
Normative social influence - ISI RESEARCH SUPPORT =
emotional rather than cognitive, LUCAS ET AL, MORE
about norms, concerned about CONFORMITY THE MORE
rejection DIFFICULT MATHS QUESTION
Informational - who has the better WAS, MORE TRUE IF MATHS
info ABILITY SAID TO BE POOR
KELMAN NSI RESEARCH SUPPORT =
BOTHERED ABOUT BEING
LIKED - ‘nAffiliators’ - GREATER
NEED FOR
AFFILIATIONS/RELATIONSHIPS
, MCGHEE AND TEEVAN
FOUND THESE MORE LIKELY
TO CONFORM
ASCH’S EXPERIMENT = NSI
ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER
= ASCH, DISSENTER = LESS
CONFORMITY DUE TO BOTH ISI
(more likely to be right) AND NSI
(social support)
ASCH = 12/18 Limited application of findings
123 American undergraduates (individualist culture not collectivist)
75% conformed once Artificial situation and task (gone
along with demand chaarcteristics)
Ethical issues
Child of time
STANFORD = 16 rules, 3 left, 1 hunger control over variables (psych testing,
strike randomly assigned)
Lack of realism (stereotypes of
roles), however was real (quantitive
data = 90% of convos about prison -
think real)
Exaggeration of results -1/3 were
cruel guards, over-stated.
MILGRAM = 300v learner pounded on research support (game of death -
wall, prods to continue 12.5% stopped at 80% to max)
300v, prediction - less than 3%, 84% glad External validity (generalisation to
to have participated Hofling et al’s nurses)
Low internal validity (guessed what
was happening - Orne and Holland).
70% thought shocks were genuine
according to M though
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES = Application - Bickman, twice as
Proximity - 30% force learners hand onto likely to obey security guard than
electroshock plate, 20.5% instructions over jacket and tie
phone, 40% in same room Cross-cultural replications = miranda
Location - 47.5% abandoned office et al, 90% in spanish students.
EXPLANATION EVALUATION
Normative social influence - ISI RESEARCH SUPPORT =
emotional rather than cognitive, LUCAS ET AL, MORE
about norms, concerned about CONFORMITY THE MORE
rejection DIFFICULT MATHS QUESTION
Informational - who has the better WAS, MORE TRUE IF MATHS
info ABILITY SAID TO BE POOR
KELMAN NSI RESEARCH SUPPORT =
BOTHERED ABOUT BEING
LIKED - ‘nAffiliators’ - GREATER
NEED FOR
AFFILIATIONS/RELATIONSHIPS
, MCGHEE AND TEEVAN
FOUND THESE MORE LIKELY
TO CONFORM
ASCH’S EXPERIMENT = NSI
ISI AND NSI WORK TOGETHER
= ASCH, DISSENTER = LESS
CONFORMITY DUE TO BOTH ISI
(more likely to be right) AND NSI
(social support)
ASCH = 12/18 Limited application of findings
123 American undergraduates (individualist culture not collectivist)
75% conformed once Artificial situation and task (gone
along with demand chaarcteristics)
Ethical issues
Child of time
STANFORD = 16 rules, 3 left, 1 hunger control over variables (psych testing,
strike randomly assigned)
Lack of realism (stereotypes of
roles), however was real (quantitive
data = 90% of convos about prison -
think real)
Exaggeration of results -1/3 were
cruel guards, over-stated.
MILGRAM = 300v learner pounded on research support (game of death -
wall, prods to continue 12.5% stopped at 80% to max)
300v, prediction - less than 3%, 84% glad External validity (generalisation to
to have participated Hofling et al’s nurses)
Low internal validity (guessed what
was happening - Orne and Holland).
70% thought shocks were genuine
according to M though
SITUATIONAL VARIABLES = Application - Bickman, twice as
Proximity - 30% force learners hand onto likely to obey security guard than
electroshock plate, 20.5% instructions over jacket and tie
phone, 40% in same room Cross-cultural replications = miranda
Location - 47.5% abandoned office et al, 90% in spanish students.
