1 2 3 4 5
Research into Limitation Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
conformity: Artificial situation and task Research support Limited generalisability Conflicting research on Support for the task
Asch (1951) Demand characteristics Linkenbach and Perkins – American men dispositional explanation difficulty variation
Trivial task with no smoking campaign, 41% vs Women may be more McGhee and Teevan – Lucas et al. – ‘easy’ and
consequences 17% conformist – social approval students with high need of ‘hard’ maths problems, 3
Didn’t resemble real groups Schultz – reusing hotel Individualistic USA – China affiliation more likely to other answers, conformed
No generalisability towels – 75% reused higher conformity rate conform (nAffiliators) more in hard task
compared to control group (Bond and Smith) Confident in ability –
conformed less
Individual-level factor
interacted with situational
variables
Types and Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
explanations Research support – Asch Unclear distinction NSI with Individual differences Research support
of conformity: Felt self-conscious giving ISI Doesn’t predict conformity Linkenbach and Perkins –
NSI correct answer, afraid of One other dissenter – in every case smoking campaign, 41% vs
disapproval reduce power of NSI and ISI nAffiliators 17%
Writing answers down: Hard to separate – operate McGhee and Teevan Schultz et al. – reusing hotel
conformity fell to 12.5% together Underlies conformity more towels – 75% reused vs 25%
e.g. unanimous group – for some people – individual
disapproval and everyone differences
Types and Strength ‘in the know’
explanations Research Support
of conformity: Lucas et al – more
ISI conformity with incorrect
answers when hard –
‘ambiguous’, didn’t want to
be wrong, relied on answers
given, poor maths ability
Conformity to Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation Strength
social roles: Control Lack of realism Alternative explanation and Ethical issues Realism
Zimbardo All emotionally stable Banuazizi and Mohavedi – challenging research Followed guidelines, McDermott: behaved as
Randomly assigned play-acting on stereotype Reicher and Haslam: social approved by ethics though real – 90% of
Internal validity (Cool Hand Luke), shown to identity theory – had to committee conversations about prison
students and correctly actively identify with roles No deception life
guessed purpose and BBC prison study – 15 male Z: lead researcher and Discussed how impossible
predicted outcome participants, did not superintendent – couldn’t to leave SPE before end of
, Exaggerates power of roles conform to role and protect participants from ‘sentence’
– 1/3 guards brutal, 1/3 fair, prisoners identified as a harm (student who wanted 416: real but run by
1/3 kind – Z overstated, said group to leave) psychologists rather than
it came ‘naturally’ government
Research into Limitation Strength/Limitation Strength Limitation Limitation
obedience: Low internal validity External validity Supporting research Alternative explanation – Ethical issues
Milgram Orne and holland – guessed Lab study Sheridan and king – real Social identity theory Deception
shocks weren’t real Reflects wider authority shocks on a puppy, 54% Reicher and Haslam Not random allocation, not
Tapes showed they relationships men 100% women Group identification – real shocks
expressed doubts about the High level of control Hofling et al. – 21/22 nurses identified with science and But debriefed
shocks Can be generalised gave drugs ordered to by experimenter Showed tense and anxious
Milgram: 70% thought they doctor Began to identify more with behaviour
were genuine le Jeu de la Mort – French victim or another group Paid so obliged to continue
television documentary Protection from harm
about reality tv – on new
game show, 80% delivered
max shock of 460V to
apparently unconscious
man Also applies ↓
Showed tense behaviour
Situational Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation
variables Research support Cross-cultural replications Low internal validity Flawed application Real-world examples
Bickman: NYC, 3 Meeus and Raaijmakers – Aware it was fake Mandel – offers an ‘alibi’ for Rank and Jacobson – nurses
confederates – jacket and say stressful things to Orne and Holland – obvious, evil behaviour prepared to disobey
tie, milkman, security guard, confederate desperate for esp. in variations – Milgram Offensive to holocaust legitimate authority
asked passers-by on street job, 90% obeyed, when admitted: contrived, may survivors
to perform tasks person giving orders not have worked it out Ignores role of dispositional Strength
2x as likely to obey security present obedience decrease Unclear if ppts saw through factors Real-world examples
guard as man in jacket and Same result for females deception Kelman and Hamilton – My
tie Italy – 85% More manipulation in Lai – power hierarchy in US
Hofling et al. – 21/22 nurses variations army
gave dangerous dose, COUNTERPOINT
ordered to by unknown Culture-bound (Western)
doctor, broke 3 rules Smith and Bond – just 2
replications in India and
Jordan
Situational Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
Research into Limitation Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
conformity: Artificial situation and task Research support Limited generalisability Conflicting research on Support for the task
Asch (1951) Demand characteristics Linkenbach and Perkins – American men dispositional explanation difficulty variation
Trivial task with no smoking campaign, 41% vs Women may be more McGhee and Teevan – Lucas et al. – ‘easy’ and
consequences 17% conformist – social approval students with high need of ‘hard’ maths problems, 3
Didn’t resemble real groups Schultz – reusing hotel Individualistic USA – China affiliation more likely to other answers, conformed
No generalisability towels – 75% reused higher conformity rate conform (nAffiliators) more in hard task
compared to control group (Bond and Smith) Confident in ability –
conformed less
Individual-level factor
interacted with situational
variables
Types and Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
explanations Research support – Asch Unclear distinction NSI with Individual differences Research support
of conformity: Felt self-conscious giving ISI Doesn’t predict conformity Linkenbach and Perkins –
NSI correct answer, afraid of One other dissenter – in every case smoking campaign, 41% vs
disapproval reduce power of NSI and ISI nAffiliators 17%
Writing answers down: Hard to separate – operate McGhee and Teevan Schultz et al. – reusing hotel
conformity fell to 12.5% together Underlies conformity more towels – 75% reused vs 25%
e.g. unanimous group – for some people – individual
disapproval and everyone differences
Types and Strength ‘in the know’
explanations Research Support
of conformity: Lucas et al – more
ISI conformity with incorrect
answers when hard –
‘ambiguous’, didn’t want to
be wrong, relied on answers
given, poor maths ability
Conformity to Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation Strength
social roles: Control Lack of realism Alternative explanation and Ethical issues Realism
Zimbardo All emotionally stable Banuazizi and Mohavedi – challenging research Followed guidelines, McDermott: behaved as
Randomly assigned play-acting on stereotype Reicher and Haslam: social approved by ethics though real – 90% of
Internal validity (Cool Hand Luke), shown to identity theory – had to committee conversations about prison
students and correctly actively identify with roles No deception life
guessed purpose and BBC prison study – 15 male Z: lead researcher and Discussed how impossible
predicted outcome participants, did not superintendent – couldn’t to leave SPE before end of
, Exaggerates power of roles conform to role and protect participants from ‘sentence’
– 1/3 guards brutal, 1/3 fair, prisoners identified as a harm (student who wanted 416: real but run by
1/3 kind – Z overstated, said group to leave) psychologists rather than
it came ‘naturally’ government
Research into Limitation Strength/Limitation Strength Limitation Limitation
obedience: Low internal validity External validity Supporting research Alternative explanation – Ethical issues
Milgram Orne and holland – guessed Lab study Sheridan and king – real Social identity theory Deception
shocks weren’t real Reflects wider authority shocks on a puppy, 54% Reicher and Haslam Not random allocation, not
Tapes showed they relationships men 100% women Group identification – real shocks
expressed doubts about the High level of control Hofling et al. – 21/22 nurses identified with science and But debriefed
shocks Can be generalised gave drugs ordered to by experimenter Showed tense and anxious
Milgram: 70% thought they doctor Began to identify more with behaviour
were genuine le Jeu de la Mort – French victim or another group Paid so obliged to continue
television documentary Protection from harm
about reality tv – on new
game show, 80% delivered
max shock of 460V to
apparently unconscious
man Also applies ↓
Showed tense behaviour
Situational Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Limitation
variables Research support Cross-cultural replications Low internal validity Flawed application Real-world examples
Bickman: NYC, 3 Meeus and Raaijmakers – Aware it was fake Mandel – offers an ‘alibi’ for Rank and Jacobson – nurses
confederates – jacket and say stressful things to Orne and Holland – obvious, evil behaviour prepared to disobey
tie, milkman, security guard, confederate desperate for esp. in variations – Milgram Offensive to holocaust legitimate authority
asked passers-by on street job, 90% obeyed, when admitted: contrived, may survivors
to perform tasks person giving orders not have worked it out Ignores role of dispositional Strength
2x as likely to obey security present obedience decrease Unclear if ppts saw through factors Real-world examples
guard as man in jacket and Same result for females deception Kelman and Hamilton – My
tie Italy – 85% More manipulation in Lai – power hierarchy in US
Hofling et al. – 21/22 nurses variations army
gave dangerous dose, COUNTERPOINT
ordered to by unknown Culture-bound (Western)
doctor, broke 3 rules Smith and Bond – just 2
replications in India and
Jordan
Situational Strength Strength Limitation Limitation Strength
